BS: Demise of the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 10:57 AM

PURE SPECULATION: [no more, no less] part 2

Angela Seagull kicks off the leadership contest
Corbyn is denied entry by foul devious dirty underhanded exploitation of technicalities..

Labour grassroots membership are outraged by the obvious coup and threaten to quit the party en mass

Suddenly up stands a Hero..

a slightly lefter and more charismatic MP than Seagull
who declares he is so pained by the prospect of a split, his conscience insists he must put himself forward
as the healing candidate Corbynites might regard as a consolation prize,
and floating disenchanted ex Labour voters should flock back to.

He, actually being the plotters genuine first choice for replacement leader.

Seagull as predicted loses, and she meekly skuls back into jobsworth obscurity...

.. and they all lived happily ever after.. The End. 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 11:30 AM

How might a split work out?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 11:39 AM

"How might a split work out?"


acrimoniously... dividing the CDs and DVDs will get bitter and tearful.. it's the kid's that'll suffer in the long run... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 11:41 AM

If both parties are irreconcilable?
Is it too painful to discuss?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 11:51 AM

Keith - seriously [for a change].. I don't know..

There must be intense anxiety and speculative calculations on both sides..

My distrust lies with the plotters, and my sympathy with Corbyn..

But as a skeptic and cynic.. who know's who's really pulling the strings...???

..and.. as an out and out barmy paranoid conspiracy theorist..

even Corbyn himself might be a secret undercover tory / mossad / CIA / KGB.. /etc [take yer pick] sleeper agent;
deployed to destroy the Labour party when the time was right for him to be 'activated'...???? 😱

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 02:20 PM

Yebbut there isn't anybody, pfr.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 02:41 PM

"even Corbyn himself might be a secret undercover tory / mossad / CIA / KGB.. /etc [take yer pick] sleeper agent;
deployed to destroy the Labour party when the time was right for him to be 'activated'...???? 😱

Why would the Tories, CIA, KGB etc want to destroy a "Blairite" Labour Party? ......a centre left party is necessary to the establishment, it gives the impression of choice and is capable of doing things to the electorate that the Tories could never get away with. See Iraq, Mass privatisation etc

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 02:48 PM

.. oops.. I left out Martians, time travellers, and subterranean mutant ninja turtles...???? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 03:16 PM

Whichever way you look at it, the plotters have grossly miscalculated strategically,
are causing terminally stupid disruption & division,
and have effed up big time in their panic & haste to force Corbyn out.

If as seems likely, the tories won't be calling a sudden election,
then over the next few years I'd have preferred to see a Corbyn mentored younger successor [RIP Jo Cox]
groomed to lead Labour into the next election.

That person need not have been entirely unpalatable to the blairites..

But the tory lite twats have decided to set loose chaos and disorder.....????? 😬

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 16 - 03:23 PM

A suggestion.

Should Corbyn be re-elected as party leader he could suggest that those MP's who stood against him resign their seats and put themselves forward for reselection by their constituency parties before a By-Election.

If this were to happen I wonder how many would be re-selected?

Yes in the short term the labour party might well lose some seats but as we will probably have a Conservative government for the next four years that in itself won't be too much of a problem.

Time to rebuild.

As I say, a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 02:50 PM

So Angela Eagle has announced her leadership challenge. I'm not a Labour supporter but the one time I saw her do Prime Ministers Questions against George Osbourne I think most people thought she did a pretty good job. So is she one of your

punkfolkrocker wrote: tory lite twats

?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 03:59 PM

Angela Eagle is surely a very able and committed MP and potential future front bench Minister...???

Angela Seagull is an insipid, uninspiring, and unimpressive choice as a Labour Party leadership contender and potential Prime Minister....!!!!! 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 02:43 PM

The Labour Party may be about to lose a committed member who, over the last two years, has put in hundreds of hours of voluntary campaigning due to the NEC not allowing local meetings to take place until after the leadership election.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 03:13 PM

Stay and fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 03:22 PM

Who actually understands who, and how are they, trying to 'possibly' rig the election by pricing out new members from 3 to 25 quid,
and not allowing anyone to vote who wasn't a member before February.


Angela Seagulll sounded very much in favour of this move....

Last night the mrs said, she really wants to join and vote this time, 10 mins later we heard a brief mention on the news about the 'apparent' vote rigging....???


she later read a comment later on twitter, that joining a union if you are not already a member,
might be a way to combat the 'alleged' rigging....????

The wife is already a Union member.

I'm unemployable, and not.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 04:24 PM

Or leave and start going to folk clubs again.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jul 16 - 08:07 PM

Well I joined last September for £1.96 per month so I get to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 02:23 AM

I've been a member since end 2014, and branch organiser since last year. What's the point in getting potential activists engaged if they are being treated like this by the national party. They do not have to apologise to those who turn up tonight because they haven't got their meeting cancellation email in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 05:22 AM

I must say I share your views on that. I dislike authoritarian behaviour from the left. Too reminiscent of Stalin and Mao. But let's stick with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 08:31 AM

DEMISE OF THE IRISH LABOUR PARTY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 10:07 AM

The unions are irrelevant to millions of people in this country, and Labour needs to move on and restructure to reflect the fact most of the workforce is not unionised.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 10:26 AM

After watching her live announcement to run in opposition to Corbyn, and a late night interview on News Night;
I'm even more convinced now that whoever persuaded and convinced Angela Seagull
that she would be a more electable leader and win over the British public to become Prime Minister,
has a severely twisted wicked cruel sense of humour...


... and should join mudcat as a member, because he or she would fit in very well here.... 😈

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 10:40 AM

"The unions are irrelevant to millions of people in this country, "
Yup - the ones with no job, that would be!
British workers have never need a Trades Union to protect them from the indifference of politicians as they do now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 10:44 AM

The unions have been emasculated by decades of Thatcherism and Blairism. The consequences have been bogus apprenticeships, millions forced to declare that they're "self-employed," unsocial hours payments slashed, job security a thing of the past, work-life balance destroyed for millions of people, a rise in workplace abuse and bullying, a boom in low-paid part-time and seasonal work, a million on zero-hours contracts, pensions devastated and pay frozen for years. That's the legacy of the right-wing war against trade unions. Labour started with trade unions and should seek always to re-empower them. No worker exercisings his or her right to withdraw their labour ever "held the country to ransom." That has always been done by greedy capitalists and multinationals. We need the unions more than ever in order to stop this country from descending into near-slavery. We are already some way down that road.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 11:07 AM

The unions have been emasculated by decades of Thatcherism and Blairism.

And Reaganism and Buehish this side of the pond. Same situation.

We need the unions more than ever in order to stop this country from descending into near-slavery.

Amen. But the average U.S. worker is completely clueless: hence The Trumpshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 11:13 AM

I have vague memories of being involved with "Unemployed Workers Union" back in the early - mid 80s

Just googled to see what came up, re the present...

might be stuff worth reading if I find time later....???

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 11:18 AM

Btw.. anyone know a lefty woman called Denise...???

My brain tries to compensate for my poor reading eyesight
and keeps telling me this thread is called

"Denise of the Labour Party"....

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jul 16 - 12:56 PM

Denise Healey - Denise Skinner - or maybe denise Young Socialist lady I used to knock around with in Liverpool in my sadly long-gone misspent youth
Those were the days, my friend!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 03:43 AM

Shaw was rabbiting on, on another thread about the percentages required to put people in positions of power. I would draw his attention to the membership numbers of the UNITE Trades Union then draw his attention to the minute portion of that membership who actually voted to elect its leaders. These are the people he wishes to be re-empowered, these are the people who thought that the Trades Unions should dictate policy to the elected Government of the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Shaw conveniently forgets the days when it depended upon the "good will" of a Hospital Porter whether or not your operation was performed or indeed if you were admitted to hospital. He forgets that in Liverpool the Royal Navy were approached regarding mass burials at sea because bodies were piling up in hospital morgues and could not be interred or cremated. Wonderful time the 1970s, all power cuts, the three day week and Healy having to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail-out - all down to wicked capitalists my arse.

Reading the last few posts from the "Labour faithful" you realise just what a bunch of dinosaurs they are - world's changed lads, time you caught up.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 08:12 AM

Fewer than 200 people voted for Theresa May for PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 08:33 AM

"good will" of a Hospital Porter"
rather than that of predatory bankers and crooked and incompetent self-serving politicians, you mean, how partisanly patronising can you get?
Hospital Porters may not have the experience, but they tend to have more contact with and care for human beings as do the people whose arses you have rammed your head up.
It was politicians and predators that have fucked up the health service, not those who actually have to clean up their mess on a daily basis.
"Fewer than 200 people voted for Theresa May for PM."
Did anybody vote for Boris or any of the other no-marks who now hold the fate of Britain in their hands
And they claim Brexit hasn't balled up Britain....!
Jim Carroll
Still no word on accommodation fotr the itinerant work force or what to do with "scroungers" I see
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 08:44 AM

I was a hospital porter [special duties orderly - my formal title] in 1980.

Aged 21 - no formal training, just handed a uniform and told to follow a nurse, do what she says, and 'get on with it'...

Mostly pushing wheelchairs, and taking amputees to the toilet.

Taking blokes with both arms amputated to the bog was probably where the 'special duties' part of my job title applied....

Too many young blokes had lost limbs on motorbikes, and in the army in Ireland.

That job convinced me to get back into education and do a humanities focused degree.....

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 08:46 AM

.. it also convinced me never, ever, to get on a motorbike...

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jul 16 - 01:18 PM

Hospital Porters, Jom, whether you were admitted to hospital, or not, or whether you could be buried or not had something to do with crossing Picket Lines.

22,511 people voted for Boris Johnson when he became MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip in 2015 (He polled 50.2%, or %50.2 of the total votes cast). Haven't gone through the same exercise with May's Cabinet but Cameron's consisted 94%, or %94, of people who had been elected to the House of Commons - I would imagine that May's Cabinet would be similar.

Did you have a family when you got on your bike Jom? Probably not. Mine stayed in the family home and I travelled to work and lived away from home as and when I had to.

The "scroungers"? - I have given you my suggestions on what to do with them twice now. As you seem to have ignored what was said I see no point whatsoever in repeating them a third time.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 04:04 AM

"Did you have a family when you got on your bike Jom? "
Are you making my point for me?
I wasn't married, if that's what you mean, but I had a mother and young sisters who depended to a degree on me - I had recently lost my father.
My background was the North of England, my friends and activities were based there, I liked living there - nobody should ever have the right to demand that I move elsewhere because the system we live in can no longer provide work for vast sweeps of Britain
At that time the North east and Northwest of Britain were permanent unemployment black-spots, the Midlands were not much better, the work was centred in the South-east which was the only place in Britain where it was readily available.
Since then that has intensified tenfold since Thatcher drew a line across Britain, virtually abandoning everywhere outside the South East.
" I have given you my suggestions on what to do with them twice now"
Where - I ignore nothing.
Your account of the Scandinavian model, based on social co-operation between workers organisations and government bodies a gross distortion of what happens there and is impractical here anyway as historically, the British establishment has refused to recognise workers representation as part of governance - Thatcher deliberately destroyed what little there was of that.
Britain has opted to force people to take whatever menial job is available - slavery without the chains.
We live in a stable society where people have established permanent identities in specific areas - we are no longer a nomadic nation and haven't been since the Neolithic period, yet twots like you would turn us into hunter-gatherers all over again.
We are human beings, not chess-pieces to be moved about to suit an economy favouring as small, privileged group who have become the sole beneficiary of the riches of society.
Your scummy argument that those who will not revert to itinerancy to find work should be either forced to by law or starved into accepting anything, whether it suits our capabilities or meets our needs, or not - which is the logic of your argument - it is primitive and savage situation you propose.
You say we should move where the work is, yet you refuse to tell us where we are going to find somewhere to live in areas where accommodation costs are directly linked to employment - hobo encampments like the Hungry Thirties in America, workingmens' hostels, sleeping rough.....?
Take your hospital porters example - because of the essential job they do, they can never take action to improve their conditions - doesn't matter that they can't feed their families on what they are paid.
Same with teachers
Same with Nurses
Same with ambulance drivers, or public transport workers.... how far do you want to go.
Same with anybody we rely on in society
Take what we choose to give you and get on with it - you have no say in your lives.
I seem to remember not so long ago your defending military officers who, at a time when hostile forces within Britain were threatening armed violence against British citizens, declared they were not prepared to act to prevent that violence.
Didn't those officers fall within the description "essential"?
You are a running joke - please keep running - it really is quite entertaining.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 04:53 AM

Jim,
I seem to remember not so long ago your defending military officers who, at a time when hostile forces within Britain were threatening armed violence against British citizens, declared they were not prepared to act to prevent that violence.

They did no such thing.
They just refused to use armed force to make a community exit the UK when they wanted to remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 06:07 AM

Gosh !

History being "revised" before our very eyes, amazing !!

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 06:28 AM

They just refused to use armed force to make a community exit the UK when they wanted to remain."
Not a community Keith - an illegally armed political organisation who re-introduced the gun into Irish politics and threatened to invade Dublin.
The "community" were in no way consulted.
Beside the point anyway - the Army were under the command of the British Govenment and any refusal to obey orders would have been tantamount to rebellion - and we all know what you feel about that in regard to Ireland!!!
A "contemptible" what, did you describe it?
Wot Raggy just said - in spades!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 06:39 AM

"My background was the North of England, my friends and activities were based there, I liked living there - nobody should ever have the right to demand that I move elsewhere because the system we live in can no longer provide work for vast sweeps of Britain"

Nobody has ever suggested that anyone should have the right to demand that you do anything.

The "system" we live in (Or more correctly in your case lived in) in Britain is not really very different to the "system" under which you'd live anywhere else in Europe and probably a lot better than many judging by the number of people from all over racing through the countries of the EU to attempt to get into the UK.

Nowhere in Europe, or for that matter anywhere in the world, does "the system" provide work for everyone on their doorsteps (You previously claimed that as a right and you were asked to identify where this right is laid down - needless to say you failed to do so - so that claim was just thrown on top of the Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" Pile)

"At that time the North east and Northwest of Britain were permanent unemployment black-spots, the Midlands were not much better, the work was centred in the South-east which was the only place in Britain where it was readily available."

Good heavens I came from Scotland and at that time there loads of people in work. My brother worked in the Midlands, the cities of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby were collectively described as the "Diamond" triangle, they were considered to be the three richest cities in Europe.

"Your account of the Scandinavian model, based on social co-operation between workers organisations and government bodies a gross distortion of what happens there and is impractical here anyway as historically, the British establishment has refused to recognise workers representation as part of governance"

My account of what happens in Scandinavia is based on me having lived and worked there for many years - your take on it is based upon what you think you've read and understood from a paper that was written ten years ago.

Trades Unions are supposed to look out for the best interests of their members. Great pity that the bosses of the Trades Union movement in the UK forgot about that and decided that they had any role to play in the governing of the country - simply put they don't.

Couple of things about Trades Unions in Scandinavia and in Germany - they restrict themselves to looking after their members and are aware of what constitutes being in the best interests of the industries their members are involved in - Company profits are viewed by those unions as being essential to the health and survivability of the companies and industries providing employment for their members. The hand they play in the day to day life of those companies is extremely responsible - In the days we are talking about how many "wildcat strikes" were there in the UK? How many in Germany? (Give you a hint - None the term is unknown and the practice illegal). In Scandinavia prior notice must be given of any strike action and the duration of any strike is limited. Once that limit has been reached the dispute goes to binding arbitration and once the verdict is given that is the end of the matter - Again in Scandinavian countries Trades Unions have no role in the governance of the country.

"Britain has opted to force people to take whatever menial job is available"

Now where on earth did you get twaddle from? Give me an example of anybody being forced to do any job in the UK by the Government. The problem is exactly the opposite with the Government seemingly being content to shovel out billions in benefits to those who steadfastly refuse to go out and find jobs that are there. They must be there because loads of people are coming into the country from all over and are being employed in jobs that our unemployed are not prepared to do. More people working in the UK today than at any time in the countries history.

"We live in a stable society where people have established permanent identities in specific areas - we are no longer a nomadic nation and haven't been since the Neolithic period, yet twots like you would turn us into hunter-gatherers all over again.

Simple matter of choice for which the individual is responsible for preparing themselves for the adult world they will soon join. If they fail to do that then as with anything involving choices there are consequences that they must accept. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.

"We are human beings, not chess-pieces to be moved about to suit an economy favouring as small, privileged group who have become the sole beneficiary of the riches of society."

I think that you will find that this small privileged group consist of people who actually earned what they have, they worked for it usually from very humble beginnings.

Your scummy argument that those who will not revert to itinerancy to find work should be either forced to by law or starved into accepting anything, whether it suits our capabilities or meets our needs, or not - which is the logic of your argument - it is primitive and savage situation you propose.

If you wish your job in life to suit your capabilities and meet your needs, then you should appreciate that YOU must start preparing for it while YOU are still at school - It is not the governments job to do that for you, it never was - IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. If it doesn't happen because you didn't do anything about it, it is not anybody else's fault but your own. If this is not explained to you firstly by your parents and secondly by your teachers then you have been severely let down, but by the time you leave primary school and enter secondary education it should have become pretty self-evident. If YOU, yourself are not going to think about your own future why the hell should anyone else? Life is NOT fair, it never ever was and it never ever will be, prepare yourself as best you can to live it.

"You say we should move where the work is, yet you refuse to tell us where we are going to find somewhere to live in areas where accommodation costs are directly linked to employment"

You say you moved down to London to find work - did you live in - "hobo encampments, workingmens' hostels, or did you sleep rough?

Of course you didn't, neither did I, you found somewhere to live that you could afford.

Unfortunately for your argument at the time we are talking about it was a Labour Government that had introduced a pay freeze that covered both private and public sector workers and the Trades Union movement full of piss and an over-inflated sense of its importance in the scheme of things completely ignored what it should have been doing and decided to try and take the duly elected Government of the country down - for the best part of a decade they had really screwed the country up and made it an international laughing stock - that ended when the results of the 1979 election were made known and a Prime Minister entered Downing Street on a promise and with a mandate to curb Union power in this country - thankfully she succeeded.

I seem to remember not so long ago your defending military officers who, at a time when hostile forces within Britain were threatening armed violence against British citizens, declared they were not prepared to act to prevent that violence."

You mean in March 1914 when a few officers stated their right to withdraw their labour by resigning their commissions in response to a "hypothetical" situation described to them?

You of course presented this as an act of aggression, that involved half the Army - it didn't, that the men refused orders when in fact no orders were given for them to disobey, and then finally when orders were given they were carried out and complied with promptly to the letter.

Now what point were you attempting to make?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 07:11 AM

"Nobody has ever suggested that anyone should have the right to demand that you do anything."
You are proposing that if I can't find work, an entitlement I have paid in all my life be withdrawn from me - - tantamount to demanding I sshould take anny job offered, no matter whether I am quailfied to do it, I want to do it or taking it would enable me to feed my family - wage slavery
" Britain is not really very different to the "system" under which you'd live anywhere else in Europe"
So?
I don't support capitalism anywhere, but my concern is for what happens here.
The rest is unqualified twaddle or dealt with interminably and really not worth bothering about - link us to something substantial or piss off
Your word alone is as unreliable as it comes and your unpleasant arrogance leaves a sour taste in the mouth
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 07:14 AM

"Now what point were you attempting to make?"
And until you stop talking down to people and come to terms with where exactly you figure in the grand order of things you will continue to be regarded as a bullying, arrogant pratt
Get a grip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 12:01 PM

It seems that Mr Corbyn may not win another election to the leadership of the Labour Party.

Apparently people who joined the party after Jan 16 will not be eligible to vote.....Unless they pay £25!!   as most of Mr Corbyn's supporters are young people and from the less well off sectors of society I think this new ruling is indefensibly biased in favour of the predominantly "liberal left" Blairite faction. This new ruling was brought in by the NEC behind closed doors after Mr Corbyn had left the meeting.

How on earth is someone with the record of Mrs Eagle even considered as Labour leader, surely with her views she would be more at home with the Liberals?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 12:45 PM

Yebbut without those stricter rules there would be howls of self-satisfied "protest" from the Keith/Teribus axis about entryism. Reds under the bed, etc. I don't like the idea that "registered supporters" get to vote if I'm honest. Party members only. The Jan 16 cutoff is draconian and wrong. The cutoff should be the day the first challenge to the leadership was posted. It's a bit like being a Catholic. You hate lots of things that your club does but you stick with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 01:09 PM

Whatever the outcome of this bitter coup..
especially if that hopeless Angela Seagull wins..

I will grit my teeth and continue vote labour rather than not vote at all.


At least it will still be a best of a bad choice anti tory vote....

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 01:17 PM

Dunno about Eagle or Seagull. She's a bloody tit, I know that much.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 01:42 PM

An eagle is a noble bird that swoops on prey decisively with grace and beauty....

A seagull is a verminous opportunistic bird that squawks and flaps about randomly,
shitting indiscriminately as it pounces and steals whatever it can greedily gorge on... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 02:14 PM

Jonathan Livingston would take issue with that..........

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 02:14 PM

Yebbut seagulls are winners. Tits get eaten by sparrowhawks.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 02:50 PM

Seagulls one of the most successful birds in existence. Truly remarkable. I have had the pleasure of watching them in their natural environment almost all of my working life. Best fliers on the planet.

As for Corbyn's supporters and the £25 "entry fee" perhaps they could chuck a brick through somebodies window and steal something to raise the sum required.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 03:02 PM

"perhaps they could chuck a brick through somebodies window and steal something to raise the sum required."
Nah, much better to claim it from expenses, or maybe from the massive bonuses given out for making a balls-up of our economy
"watching them in their natural environment almost all of my working life."
Amazing what you can see through a galley porthole!
Jim Carroll