BS: Demise of the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 10:02 PM

Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem.

The problem is crazy people, not Islam.

The threat of their "lone wolf attacks" represent their last dying throws

Hardly. And I think you meant throes. Unless, of course, they're playing bocce.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 07:09 PM

Israel has the bomb but that has not deterred attacks on Israel from multiple quarters. Go on, tell me why Israel didn't nuke Gaza or Lebanon, and please don't say it was because Israel is the nice guy. Pakistan has the bomb but it hasn't prevented Indian aggression or US drones from killing people on their turf. We have the bomb but it didn't deter Argentina from occupying our sovereign territory. The US has the bomb but it didn't deter 9-11. Over 200 countries do not have the bomb and the vast majority of them have not been attacked during the nuclear age. Proving that the bomb is a deterrent is like proving that God exists or that the Stones were better than the Beatles. Can't be done. The best deterrent by far is to have a non-aggressive, non-interfering foreign policy. The US and UK have a lot to learn in that regard. And the bomb is completely bloody useless against al Qaeda and Isis and they know it, and that knowledge informs their modus operandi.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 06:52 PM

How droll Greg F.

Nice to hear that Raggy believes that Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem.

As far as that and those who may support them goes, the last thing Chirac in France did was to reconfigure the weapons load on France's SSBNs - four missile tubes are now loaded with "Tactical" warheads in case some state decides to back the "extremists" - Iran has already been given the warning.

Of course nuclear weapons are not meant to deter any terrorist attack. They will as explained above deter any country with any idea of supporting some terrorist organisation with nuclear ambitions George W Bush while he was President of the United States stopped in their tracks secret nuclear weapons programmes in Iran, Syria and Libya - by the bye just in case anybody misses the significance of that, the only reason you hide and create a secret nuclear weapons programme is that you fully intend to use those weapons, because if secret they serve no purpose as a deterrent.

Al Qaeda is now almost irrelevant, since their spectacular in 2001 they have achieved nothing.

ISIS have been on the back foot for the last 12 months. The threat of their "lone wolf attacks" represent their last dying throws and they fully realise that. As an organisation they are going nowhere and they know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 05:04 PM

I think Mr. T meant detergent.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 03:08 PM

Surprisingly I find myself in agreement with Akenaton.

Having said that anyone who goes to bed with his cocoa and union flag pyjamas on probably won't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 12:59 PM

Sorry Mr T, but they are not a deterrent to terrorism

They may be a deterrent to Russia and China, though I find it hard to believe that either of these powers have any intention of attacking us....our biggest danger is to Western economies via small groups or "lone wolf" Islamic Terrorists and they can only be dealt with by conventional means.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 10:46 AM

Because they actually do what it says on the packet - they are a deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 09:57 AM

The vote will go in favour of the next generation of nuclear submarine but as Teribus said they haven't actually killed anyone. (maybe one or two in the dockyard)

Begs the question why do we have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 09:45 AM

By the way, it has been explained before todays vote in Parliament has got nothing to do with Trident per se - The vote today is about building four submarines.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 09:41 AM

Stu - 17 Jul 16 - 02:40 PM

"Voting for Trident means that person is willing to slaughter millions of people (most of whom will have no control over the actions of their government) in an insane act of mutually assured destruction."

Really??? It has been voted on before, and it's been around operationally since 1979 - how many people has it killed so far?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 08:35 AM

Apparently we need nuclear weapons to aid the fight against terrorism

So sayeth the defence secretary on bbc this morning..when pressed by the obnoxious Mr Humphries he became a stuttering wreck and could not justify the statement.

The fight against terrorism will be appearing in a street near you very shortly.

the great powers are at last beginning to build bridges on defence against the biggest danger facing the world today....Islamic Fundamentalism........let us not rock the boat by creating cold war bogeymen.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 02:26 AM

Stu, you are correct to cite it would be mutually assured destruction if Trident were to be used. However in the 21st Century it is normal to use an acronym for ease of use. Thus I would suggest M.A.D. instead of Trident.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 02:40 PM

Voting for Trident means that person is willing to slaughter millions of people (most of whom will have no control over the actions of their government) in an insane act of mutually assured destruction. It's the act of a lunatic, plain and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 11:50 AM

Not entirely sure what kind of mood brief exposure to pin up boy Owen Smith has put the wife in...

.. but she's now watching a Hugh Grant rom com DVD in just her bra and pyjama bottoms... ?????


Could this be the magic winning formula for a next Labour Leader and Prime Minister...?????? 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 11:28 AM

He also said he would vote for Trident. It wasn't squeezed out of him. He was direct and emphatic. A change from JC.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 11:00 AM

..so then... as speculated/predicted.. Angela Lameduck = stalking horse / sacrificial mutton..

Owen Smith = The Red Dragon Knight in Shining Armour... our hero !!!???


The wife has taken an instant fancy to Smith after only watching him for 10 minutes on the telly..

Well.. He might not be as left as Corbyn, but he's much younger, and dashing fit looking eye candy for middle aged house wives
in his open necked "Poldark" white shirt.. 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 08:11 AM

"FTSE up to highest point it has been for 9 months"
Britain's greatest export is money and the wealth gap has never been greater and it is increasing whatever the figures say
The economy is now geared to producing more wealth for the wealthy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:56 AM

"All the "doom'n'gloom" predictions that you lot were wittering on about have not come to pass and looking at it rationally why should they"

It certainly is happening in the higher education sector, which is already suffering. A funding crisis is building in our universities, and already we're seeing students and academics changing their plans. There is real unease in HE, and this is beginning to effect research which is an issue as we are a leading country for research and collaboration.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:40 AM

Yeh, whatever. Your knowledge of macro-economics is vast no doubt.

You can't even realise that I used Dell Computers as an example of what we can expect in the coming months. You just regurgitate again and again "I've only ever bought two computers ........ doesn't bother me"

You probably don't even realise it a small part of things to come because you have your Union Flag glasses on.

Your lack of consideration for other people is now legendary so no change there.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:28 AM

Ah Raggy are you talking about people who pop out all the time to buy computers again? Not noticed much of an increase in my usual household bills, food, electricity, etc.

Interest rates expected to come down to the lowest they have ever been, best mortgage rates on offer ever, British exports more competitively priced. All the "doom'n'gloom" predictions that you lot were wittering on about have not come to pass and looking at it rationally why should they - as for at least the next three years nothing will change and even after that people will do what is in the best interests of the region - and that will rule out any great "spite fest", they aren't after all the British Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:08 AM

So the £1 is worth 1.20 Euro, well that's great except it's not is it.

Just 3 weeks ago it was slightly over 1.30 Euro and thus everything we import now will be approximately 8% more expensive than it was just three weeks ago including food together with all the other goods we import from Europe.

Who does this hit the most ............ well it affects us all to an extent but it does affect the people with less resources hardest as they have no surplus wealth with which to pay the increased costs.

But I'm sure you will say that is their own fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:26 AM

Steve Shaw - 17 Jul 16 - 05:18 AM

Pot, kettle, black Shaw I'll leave you to join up the dots, it is after all what you and the usual suspects have been unabashedly dishing out to Keith A and Akenaton for over two years now.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:23 AM

Jim Carroll - 17 Jul 16 - 03:08 AM

I say again what balls up?

FTSE up to highest point it has been for 9 months

£1 = €1.20

These reported each day so why do you select information that is one month out of date?

"Typical was the banking crisis, where we bailed out and those who caused it and those in charge paid themselves huge bonuses to put matters matters right."

The banks were bailed out so that people did not lose their savings, that businesses big and small who employ the workforce of the nation could continue to function and that people could be paid. Those sound reasonable explanations as to why the Government felt the need to "bail-out" the banks and come to their rescue? Those in charge of the banks paid themselves big bonuses did they? I seem to recall that they were actually asked to forego their bonuses and in some cases pay them back. Where changes at the top were made in certain institutions the incoming head was offered a salary and bonus package based upon HIS/HER performance NOT that of the institution he/she was taking charge of. Previous example given:

If someone steps in to take over the running of something that was making a £345 million loss each year and 12 months latter has succeeded in reducing that loss to only £150 million a year - he/she has saved the shareholders of that company £195 million pounds in the course of that year - has he/she done a good job? I'd say that he/she had and therefore would deserve the bonus offered when he/she was originally offered the position.

"Still nothing on accommodation for your itinerant work-force, I see??"

On the contrary, I have asked you a number of times now. When you came south to London to find work did you find accommodation? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, all over the world move to find work. That migration of labour generally seems to be towards big cities, yet it does not seem to result in them all finding themselves "homeless" possibly because they did the same as you and I did.

1. Stayed for a short while with someone you knew before finding somewhere affordable to rent.
2. Stayed at a cheap B&B until you could find somewhere affordable to rent.
3. Find somewhere affordable to rent before moving down.

No great mystery Carroll - as I say hundreds of thousands if not millions do it all the time - as well you know.

"The people of Northern Ireland were never asked what they wanted - the sectarians got guns and threatened to invade Dublin"

The people of Ireland weren't asked either, they knew that the political party they supported had won them Home Rule when a gang of seven sectarians decided to start a fight that resulted in the destruction of the centre of Dublin followed by two wars that resulted in massive loss of life - yet you applaud that. shall we put it into perspective:

In 1916 seven men signed the Proclamation of the Republic in Dublin.

The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 had fifty-six signatories.

In 1912 virtually an entire community put their signatures to the Ulster Covenant. In Ulster, 218,206 men signed the Covenant; and 228,991 women signed a parallel Declaration associating themselves with the men in their uncompromising opposition to the new Home Rule Bill now before parliament . A further 19,162 men and 5,055 women of Ulster birth signed in Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Liverpool, London, Manchester and Bristol.

The Ulster Covenant was a truly impressive demonstration of the resolve of early twentieth-century Ulster unionists to remain citizens of the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Note: Ulster Unionists - not Protestants

Where and when did the UVF ever threaten to march south and "invade Dublin" as you put it? Carson and Craig were explicitly clear on who would face the UVF if Home Rule was forced on Ulster and Ulster men and women were deprived of their birth right as British subjects - the BRITISH GOVERNMENT

and those whose responsibility it was to defend Britian {sic} said they would not carry out that defence.

The responsibility for the defence of Britain was devolved to 57 officers of the 3rd Cavalry Division? Wow they must have been absolute Titans if they were responsible for the defence of Great Britain before the other 440,000 men in the British Army at the time and God knows how many more in the Royal Navy.

You've long lost this battle Keith

No Carroll you lose this battle every single time you bring it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:18 AM

It's bloody impossible to discuss anything at all with someone who declares that he will "take me to task" on the basis of gross misrepresentations of what I said. Your modus operandi is to fly off the handle with me and Jim at every opportunity, regardless of what we say (or in many cases what we haven't said at all) but not once do you ever "take to task" akenaton, Keith or bobad in spite of the multiple streams of idiocy that emanate from them. You are the ultimate tribalist. I could recite the Tory manifesto to you as gospel and you'd find something to "take me to task" about. You're a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:09 AM

When the number of people reach 100,000 can they still be considered radicals or are they part of the broad church which the Labour Party has ever been.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 04:26 AM

pfr, surely it would be more appropriate for the Dodo to be adopted by the Labour Party considering the circumstances they find themselves in.

As for taking a break Mr Shaw, couldn't possibly when you come out with such outrageous assertions based upon nothing bar your own rather ludicrous point of view. You speak with authority for no-one but yourself so please do not be surprised if when you come out with terms like "mainstream Christians" and claim "majorities support" without evidence to back it up you will be taken to task for it.

The Labour Party is in one God awful mess, of it's own making. The only people who support Corbyn are the 100,000 radicals who were allowed to "join" the Labour Party to vote in the last leadership election by paying a £3 fee. The fear from Corbyn's supporters now is the fact that they may now baulk at the prospect of having to pay a heftier £25 fee to vote in this leadership election (What will it be next time? £50 - reads like some sort of sshoddy scam to raise Party funds).

Now instead of Shaw's baseless assertions here are the findings of some polls that have actually been taken that indicate the degree of "support" that Corbyn has:

1: Parliamentary Labour Party are against him 172 to 40

2: Three out of every four voters are against him

3: Labour's NEC had to ignore its own election rules to let Corbyn stand. The vote to let him appear on the ballot as incumbent was only passed by four votes, one of them being Corbyn's own vote.

4: Ipsos Mori Poll question - "Has Jeremy Corbyn got what it takes to be a good Prime Minister?"
Yes - 23% (% for Eagle was 21%)
Don't know - 9% (% for Eagle was 39%)
No - 68% (% for Eagle was 40%)

5: YouGov Poll Question - "If Jeremy Corbyn remains as Labour leader, how likely or unlikely are they to win the next general election?"

Likely - 39%
Unlikely - 57%
Don't know - 4%

6: YouGov Poll of UNITE Members:

Question 1 - "Is Corbyn doing well as Labour Party Leader?"
Yes - 34%
No - 65%

Question 2 - "Is Corbyn ever likely to be PM?"
Yes - 18%
No - 79%

Question 3 - "Should Corbyn lead Labour to next election?"
Yes - 35%
No - 49%

Len McCluskey Boss of UNITE claims his members have got it wrong and that UNITE will support Corbyn - shades of Arthur Scargill? I thought Unions were supposed to represent their members not tell them what is good for them.

7: So what were the views of other Trades Union members?

YouGov poll question - "Do you think Jeremy Corbyn should fight the next General Election as Labour Leader?"

CWU - Yes 30%: No 62%
USDAW - Yes 27%: No 61%
GMB - Yes 34%: No 60%
Unison - Yes 28%: No 59%

8: Sky Data Poll Question - "Who would make a better Prime Minister?"

Theresa May - 62%
Don't know - 20%
Jeremy Corbyn - 18%

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 04:22 AM

Were any catholics asked to sign?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 04:15 AM

The people of Northern Ireland were never asked what they wanted

Complete bollocks Jim!!
On 28 September 1912, over 500,000 Unionists signed the Ulster Covenant pledging to defy Home Rule by all means possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 03:08 AM

"What balls up Jom?"
ONE
TWO
THREE
Are you insane? - Britain has suffered a series of economic disasters and is heading for another one caused by this shit decision.
As far as the consequences are concerned, the people of Britain have borne the burden of those disasters and those in charge have got off scott free.
Typical was the banking crisis, where we bailed out and those who caused it and those in charge paid themselves huge bonuses to put matters matters right.
Fine from your side of the fence Mr Woodencock.
Still nothing on accommodation for your itinerant work-force, I see??
"Do you deny that the majority in NI did not want to leave the UK, and were prepared to fight to remain part of it?"
The people of Northern Ireland were never asked what they wanted - the sectarians got guns and threatened to invade Dublin and those whose responsibility it was to defend Britian said they would not carry out that defence.
You've long lost this battle Keith
How happy wuld you be if those who wished stay in Europe took up arms to carry out their wishes and the army refused to act
I suppose you've been stirred into enthusiasm by the sectarian marching season you support, me little Billy Boy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 10:00 PM

... ostrich...???


.. Rod Hull's effin emu...?????


.. bugger it.. too much choice.. they all display classic tory characteristics....????

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 09:55 PM

...and whilst we are amusing ourselves with ornithological metaphors..

..can't decide if the most apt bird for the tories is the vulture or the dodo...??? 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 07:22 PM

That is just about the stupidest piece of twisting I've ever seen. Have another vat of your favourite and sleep soundly. All day tomorrow would be good, at least for us here, and it might just leave you sweeter. You are getting old, after all, and it don't half show.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 06:51 PM

Steve Shaw - 16 Jul 16 - 06:19 PM

STOP THE PRESSES - RESULTS OF ANOTHER NATIONWIDE POLL BY STEVE SHAW

Poll 1:
The people who keep the NHS afloat are all "lefties" who support Jeremy Corbyn to a man;

Poll 2:
The people who keep our old people happy in care homes on a pittance are all "lefties" who support Jeremy Corbyn to a man;

Poll 3:
Every single kid currently serving an "apprenticeship" is a "leftie" and a Jeremy Corbyn Supporter

Poll 4:
Every single retail worker in the country on the new Living wage introduced by the Conservative Government last April is a "leftie" and Corbyn Supporter

Poll 5:
All those working in the leisure and hospitality industry are "lefties" and Jeremy Corbyn supporters.

All of the above according to Steve Shaw do a damn sight more to keep this economy afloat than most, yet would by being Corbyn supporters throw the bloody lot a way in the blink of an eye to elect into office a man who would be the greatest disaster as a Prime Minister this country has ever seen. Hell leadership qualities!!! I don't know anyone who would follow him even out of the vaguest feeling of idle curiosity.

Must be nice speaking with so much authority on behalf of so many people - but hang on a minute you don't do you - its all just "made-up-shit".

Corbyn supporters are numbered at less than 200,000 - Labour voters are numbered in their millions and it is the Labour voters that will put a Labour Government in power - they will not vote for Corbyn or those candidates selected by his followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 06:19 PM

"The UK economy at present is one of the strongest in the developed world. Don't think many Corbyn supporters had anything to do with that though."

So lefties are all feckless benefits claimants then are they? Not the people who keep the NHS afloat in spite of Toryism, not the people who keep our old people happy in care homes on a pittance, not the kids who are being duped into thinking that they're on an "apprenticeship," not the millions of retail industry workers who are on the minimum wage and who can be called in to work until ten at night or all day Saturday and Sunday to make sure that you can shop at your whim, not the exploited millions who change the beds and clean the bogs in stuffy hotel bedrooms to keep rich foreign tourists happy? Yes, many of them are Corbyn supporters who do a damn sight more to keep this economy afloat than most of those spivs in the City who rob the world blind with computer mice. That quote of yours plumbs the depths of disgrace more than anything you've ever said, which is saying something, eh? Talk about us and them...

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 05:23 PM

Well, I rather like Mrs May's cabinet choice. I think Boris can make an excellent Foreign secretary, he seems at ease in any company and is unhindered by any deep seated ideology.....I can see Boris becoming a bit of a star, if he can handle the very difficult set of circumstances with which he has been saddled.
I like David Davis who seems sincere and sensible and Mrs May is exactly what we need at present as Prime minister.

Never voted Conservative in my life, but if it comes to a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, my vote would go to the Conservatives over the self serving Blairite scum.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 04:01 PM

"much better to claim it from expenses, or maybe from the massive bonuses given out for making a balls-up of our economy"

What balls up Jom? The UK economy at present is one of the strongest in the developed world. Don't think many Corbyn supporters had anything to do with that though.

"watching them in their natural environment almost all of my working life."

I know there are some Mudcatters who are bird watchers and I think that they will agree with me on that, the seagull was the bird that inspireD R.J.Mitchell to design and build the Spitfire.

"Amazing what you can see through a galley porthole!

Ah back to your unfathomable downer on Cooks again Jom, but almost an "own goal" like the "Rourke's Drift" one in a previous thread - IF I were aboard ship, and IF I worked in the Galley you tell me "Brain of County Clare" who would have the best chance of seeing exactly what a seagull could do in flight?































THE F**KER WHO FEEDS THEM - YOU HALFWIT PRAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 03:21 PM

Jim,
- an illegally armed political organisation who re-introduced the gun into Irish politics and threatened to invade Dublin.

That would be the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and they did invade Dublin!

Do you deny that the majority in NI did not want to leave the UK, and were prepared to fight to remain part of it?

No.
It is a fact.
The officers you refer to refused to force them out by killing their former comrades.
They preferred to resign as was their legal right.
There was no refusal to obey orders nor any threat to do so.
Resigning is not a rebellion.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:09 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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