BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 03:07 AM

Hopefully Corby will walk it.
I believe that, if he doesn't the Labour Party will have gone the same way the Irish Labour Party has gone.
They threw their lot in with the worst of the other main parties in order to win seats and when the voters rejected the establishment policies, Labour sank like a stone, throwing away decades of progress and hard work.
The level of nastiness and dishonesty by Corbyn's opponents, backed by the sewer press, is a reasonable indication that he might be the new broom needed to clean up the farce that claims to be 'democracy' - inexperienced or not.
Britain doesn't need 'strong leaders' at present - Mussolini and Pinochet were 'strong leaders'.
We need principled and compassionate policies introduced for the well-being of all British people - not juts the already over-privileged.
Fingers crossed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 03:44 AM

I agree,Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 08:59 AM

We'll know tomorrow. Everyone says he'll win. But that's the same everyone who got the general election results so wrong.

I'm not a Labour supporter, (then again I am over 30) but I can see a bad leader and entry-ism when it dances all over my TV screen.

Can't you?.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 09:44 AM

"Can't you?."
Nope
I can see where a group of people who were driven out of the Labour Party when it was distorted in into New Labour by a possible human-rights criminal, a soft-porn journalist and a couple of careerist no-marks, returning in the hope of turning it back into the principled party it once was.
If Corbyn manages it he will have done the country, which at present has a racist as foreign secretary, a great favour - if not, we can look forward to a situation where we continue to drive the refugees from wars we have helped create into the war zones they have fled for their lives from - go count the increasing number of RACIST ATTACKS in Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 08:38 AM

Suppose everybody's out toasting Corbyn's magnificent victory
Let's hope he lives up to the trust that people have put in him and turn Labour back into a genuine alternative party rather than the establishment nodding dog it became.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 09:42 AM

Amen to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 10:05 AM

I hope so, too. But all this talk of unity is a bit suspect since it is not clear what is being united around. I have heard quite a few who voted for Owen calling for unity but none I have heard have said they will support Corbyn now. The next few days will be telling.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 11:19 AM

Jeremy Corbyn

https://soundcloud.com/denise_whittle/jeremy-corbyn-song

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 05:33 AM

A bit under 24 hours, but I think the Tory response is already clear: there have been a quite a lot of references to 172 MPs passing the 'no confidence' vote. If that isn't a major note of the next election campaign, I'd be very surprised. And I can't say I blame them - it is a heck of a thing to try to argue against. Replace all the 172? Long knives and a hard left takeover. Keep them and they vote with Corbyn? All self serving and without conviction. Keep them and they vote against? Party is disunited. Keep them and free vote? No leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 08:47 AM

The media in Iran, a state that supports and funds Islamist and anti-Semitic organizations Hamas, Hezbollah and activities of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are openly celebrating the victory of Jeremy Corbyn. Exactly the friends the Labour Party wants and Britain needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 09:21 AM

That's going to further this discussion no end Bobad - well done
I strongly suggest this piece of Trollism be ignored
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 09:31 AM

I know forums from which he would be banned or suspended for that intervention alone, let alone for his track record of secret multiple identities, lying and name-calling from behind a wall of anonymity. Still, we'll no doubt get a mod complaining about our insulting behaviour instead, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 09:50 AM

Ah yes, let us not consider inconvenient truths that make us uncomfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 11:29 AM

Well you should be feeling bloody uncomfortable with the truths I've just told about you, you charlatan.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 12:36 PM

I can see why someone would choose to post anonymously with sick, obsessive stalkers like you around. I would fear for my life if you knew my identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 12:41 PM

Jim, from your link,
"The police linked the spike in hate crime incidents immediately after the June referendum directly to the vote, saying people had taken the vote to leave the EU as a licence to behave in a racist or discriminatory way. Offences had been mainly harassment and threats of a racist nature against "visible minorities" as well as people from eastern Europe.

Amber Rudd, the home secretary, went further when she discussed the figures with MPs on the home affairs select committee on Wednesday, saying that the level was back in line with 2015.

"There was a spike in crime after 23 June. I am pleased to say it has now gone back to levels comparable to last year. We are watching it carefully. We will continue to combat hate crime however we can," she told MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 02:02 PM

So?
What else is the government going to say?
This is about the Labour Party, not how the Establishment justifies a decision taken on racist lines
Bearing your own request in mind - "Yes please."
Don't feed the troll Steve
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 02:32 PM

You think that the government could make shit up and the people who produce the figures not notice?
Hardly, on such an emotive subject.
Anyway, it was in your link.
Why am I a troll just for quoting from your link Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 02:40 PM

Keith, a troll to those two is anyone who posts anything that challenges their ideologies or that they don't want to hear. They are unfamiliar with the concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 03:10 PM

"Why am I a troll just for quoting from your link Jim?"
Who said you were?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 04:15 PM

Surely everybody knows what first rule about responding to trolls? "Don't do it." So why do it?
..................

So far as I can see those hostile to Corbyn within the Labour Party all seem to say that on pretty well all domestic issues they agree with the policies he espouses, which are in no way extreme "hard left".

Insofar as there are differences on foreign policy, notably on whether the retention of Trident is common sense or insanity, these critics should accept that they are out of line with the mass of the Labour Party membership. For a generation those who share Corbyn's position have had to live with the fact that they are out of line with the party on that issue. Now it's the turn of the nuclear suicide bombers to do the same.

There's no rational basis for failing to pull together. That doesn't rule out voting against the party on points of principle, as Corbyn has been attacked for doing (in most cases, if you examine the record, "with the benefit of hindsight" most Labour MPs would probably agree he was right). What it might rule out is stabbing him, in the back. The point being that it's not just Corbyn they would be attacking, it would be the membership who make up the party, including their own constituency party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 05:21 PM

There is agreement on the overall policys, I agree, Kevin, but the major theme of the campaign was that it wasn't about policy, in the main, but leadership skills and presentation. I don't fully buy that, since there were quite a lot of differences between what the policy meant in detail, including timing and financial aspects.

But listening to Heidi Alexander today, she was in no mood for anything other than Corbyn ceding the election of the shadow cabinet completely to the PLP for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 16 - 08:21 PM

Perhaps enough of them will manage to curb their peevishness and grow up. Stuff about leadership styles is irrelevant, Jeremy Corbyn is the choice of the party, is trusted by the party, and it doesn't matter whether they like him or not. Most of us in the course of our lives have to buckle down and work under bosses we may, rightly or wrongly, not think are up to the job.

If they can't do that they should face reality and resign as MPs, not try to sabotage the settled decision of the membership which makes up the party. Without the Labour Party none of them would have been elected.

Having the shadow cabinet elected by MPs in normal circumstances could work well enough, but when you've got the MPs at daggers drawn to the party's chosen leader it doesn't make sense. As and when these petulant politicos can grow up it might be fair enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 01:40 AM

"Why am I a troll just for quoting from your link Jim?"
Who said you were?

You did Jim when, referring to my posts specifically, you told Steve not to "feed the troll."

Are you now withdrawing the smear?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 03:19 AM

"You did Jim when, referring to my posts specifically,"
I really am not going to enter into a dialogue with you and **** up another thread Keith
If you read what I wrote (and maybe get somebody to explain it), it was addressed to Steve's responding to troll Bobad, which he had done - that way be dragons for this thread.
The world really doesn't revolve around you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 03:49 AM

Thanks for clearing that up Jim.
The rest of your post was all about me, and then you said "don't feed the troll."
I doubt if I was the only one who assumed you were still talking about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 07:29 AM

......and **** up another thread Keith

You already have.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 12:33 PM

In all the upset about online abuse it,s been interesting to note how completely different types of hostile language havve been jumbled together and denounced as if they were the same. So it's implied that political insults, such as "traitor", or "Tory" or "Trot" are every bit as much to be abhorred and denounced as vile sexist or racist insults or threats.

So is it suggested that the Red Flag, with its "let cowards fkinch and traitors sneer" should be shunned?

I'm with Corbyn in preferring to avoid even those kind of essentially political insults, as unhelpful and needlessly provocative, but I don't think they should be outlawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 04:19 PM

Theres certain phrases i really wish Jeremy would ask his followers to leave behind 'Blairite scum', 'riding the gravy train', 'backstabbers'

They recur again and again and they are highly inflammatory - not to say insulting to people who admittedly have a different view, but in many cases have served the party for years, as well as they could.

We need to bury that shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM

He has very clearly and repeated nade it crystal clear that he is against all that kind of stuff. I'm not sure what more he can do. After all it doesn't help any.

I continue to suspect that some of the stuff that has been reported, especially the violent woman-hating specimens, may have been planted rather than being from genuine Corbyn supporters. Nothing to stop that kind of thing, that's how the Internet works. Either way the people responsible are nuts. There are plenty of those on the Net.

But I distinguish between that and the directly political abuse, though I don't like those either. From what I've seen looking at Labour List or comments in newspaper sites, the Corbyn haters are Pretty much in evidence there, though not much seems to have been said about it. The media story is that it's all one way, which is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 03:22 AM

Hi Big Al.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:18 PM

I admire Jeremy Corbyn, I think renationalisation of the railways is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Sep 16 - 02:41 PM

Hi there keith! very saddened by the recent death of MGM. he was a very special sort of chap. I visited him at his house near cambridge and we went to the local pub for dinner. Witty, donnish, incisive. He asked me to come again, but with denise being ill so much of the time I never made it.

still doing the occasional gig. still don't really feel up to the waspishness of Mudcat. something to do with getting older I suppose.

Anyway best of luck to you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:12 PM

Jeremy's speech to Labour Conference was pretty good, I felt. And it was interesting to see the Red Flag and Jerusalem stuck in at the end of the speech, and a lively rendering rather than the way it normally gets tucked away at the end in a very embarrassed way. (Speech and songs both on YouTube).

Now if only the silly buggers could get over themselves, stop having tantrums, and get together. The trouble is there's a faction who actually seem to want a defeat in order to get rid of the threat of what Corbyn stands for - democratic socialism. Corbyn winning an election would be seen by the likes of Mandelson as the worst outcome, and they are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.   But I don't think that faction is as powerful within the Labour Party, even the PLP, as it thinks - though of course it's the
way pretty well all the media is slanted, including the Guardian and even the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 16 - 05:28 PM

That's exactly how I see it. And the naysayers need a massive dose of humility in recalling that they were responsible for inflicting Cameron on us twice over. Two-time losers. On their own they'll never win anything. They need the Corbyn dose of fresh air!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:35 AM

On their own they'll never win anything.

They won 3 elections under Blair. The far left have never won anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 03:58 AM

"They won 3 elections under Blair. The far left have never won anything.
Led by a war criminal who illegally involved Britain in oil wars which are still bringing British young people home in body bags.
The General election following the war introduced socialist policies what altered the face of Britain, social housing, a National Health Scheme which, for all its faults, is the envy of the world, unemployment and hardship benefits, a voice in the work[lace.... all paid for by sharing the profits brought about.
All these were violently opposed and all but destroyed by Conservative Governments and the move away from Socialist values by later Labour politicians led to a return to the dog-eat-dog system we now live under.
No period in history has ever produced such radical beneficial changes for the people of Britain than those introduced by the post-war Labour Government.
Extreme right wing policies such as those forced through by Thatcher, the self-declared fascist, led immediately to a steep rise in unemployment which continues to fluctuate, a loss of voice in the workplace, a sharp divide between rich and poor, insecurity of tenure in our homes, and the destruction of our industries, some of them which had taken centuries to build.
Right-wing politics have brought Britain nothing but hardship, insecurity and a dependence on foreign imports.
The largest export from Britain today is FINANCE which benefits only the wealthy.
Corbyn has promised a break with that rotten, out-dated system, and haven't the privileged rats run round in circles trying to stop him - throwing at him everything from misogyny to antisemitism.      
Let's hope he doesn't go 'the Way of all Political Flesh' and lives up to his promise to introduce genuine socialist policies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:46 AM

Jim, what is the point of introducing socialist policies into a global capitalist economic system? It just does not make sense, you put the cart before the horse.
I do not expect Mr Corbyn or anyone with a real socialist agenda to be elected to office in the next decade

Our society has become contaminated, everyone is to blame for our failure to sustain great services like the NHS, which is exploited by everyone. We need to educate our population into accepting the need for sustainability......that will take generations and at the end huge sections of the population will be less well off financially...not an easy policy to push, is it?

It may be acceptable to committed socialist, of which I am one, but the population in general will take more convincing....just look how many people play the lottery.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 08:19 AM

"Jim, what is the point of introducing socialist policies into a global capitalist economic system?"
It was done in 1949 and it improved the lot of British people
What do you suggest in practical terms as an alternative - that we send missionaries out to educate the people and sit and our hands and wait, allowing the situation to remain the same?
I have no intention of arguing this with you at any length Ake - we've been here before.
You're not unlike the sailor standing outside the wedding with the albatross hanging around his neck.
Given the situation, what do you suggest should happen to change things?
Hearts and minds are won over by action, not ideas and, in the meantime, it is possible to alleviate at least the worst of the problems that this system brings with it.
In the meantime, unless we place the blame really where it belongs and not, as is your tendency, at the Poles and the refugees and the National Health "abusers" and the "dole scroungers" and the "lack of values", the people who benefit the most from this system will be laughing all the way to the Stock Exchange.
We live now and here, not in some Utopian Cloud-Cuckoo Land when one day everybody will wake up with the scales fallen from their eyes.
Practical suggestions please?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 08:29 AM

"socialist policies what altered the face of Britain, social housing, a National Health Scheme which, for all its faults, is the envy of the world, unemployment and hardship benefits, a voice in the work[lace.... all paid for by sharing the profits brought about." - Jim Carroll

Ehmm No, all paid for by US Marshall Aid plus an additional loan of $4 million from the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

"Ehmm No, all paid for by US Marshall Aid plus an additional loan of $4 million from the USA."
I don't accept for one minute that this continued to be the case, the Americans gave $12 billion to rebuild Western Europe after the destruction of the war, Britain got about %26 of that.
The Martial Plan ended in 1951, at the time of the Korean War - Joe McCarthy's America would not in a million years have stood by while it's donations were being used to introduced Socialist measures into Britain.
Had it been down to the Conservatives, not a penny would have been spent to better the lot of the ordinary person - that was down to a Labour Government who adopted a very limited Socialist policy of sharing out what wealth there was at hand.
The Tories opposed all the measures bitterly, The National Health Scheme included - eventually, under funding and right-wing antipathy killed of the benefits there were, and the greed of the privileged destroyed our industrial base.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:00 PM

Not really interested in what you would accept because oddly enough when it comes to historical documented fact what you are prepared to accept is irrelevant.

As far as spending Marshall Aid goes the Germans got it right, not through Teutonic efficiency and ruthless pragmatism, they didn't have much choice. Instead of spending their dosh (They got $1.7 billion the UK got $2.7 billion) on creating a "Welfare State", they had to spend it on infrastructure and machinery in order that they could get their population working. With a population working it meant that they could be taxed and it was their taxes that built the German "Welfare State". Because our dosh did not go towards rebuilding our industrial base, once the Germans got going in rival fields their industries were at a considerable advantage, they were more efficient because their equipment was modern while ours were old and worn out.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 01:51 PM

"Not really interested in what you would accept "
And I'm not really interested in what you're you don't accept
You never back up what you claim anyway.
Creating an all inclusive society giving people a statke and a voice in Britain could have achieved what the Germans did had it been let run its course.
Labour (then) saw the interests of the people in the form of Housing, Health and insurance against hardship, as a priority.
It's not as if the ordinary people of Britain would ever have prospered under your lot - even at the best of times, their interesteds wer put at the bottom of the pile.
British industry as a whole was systematically destroyed, not because it was "crap" or because teh peole were "lazy scroungers", as you "patriots" have suggested, but because it was ore profitable to go elsewhere.
That would have been the case had Britain spent all the money available rather than on its poorer sections.
Labour chose to put people before profit
It has my gratitude, but there again - I despise greed, not worshop it, as you do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 02:11 PM

Could we have that again in English?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 02:14 PM

The "anti-Semitism" row continues to rumble on with calls from those within the Labour Party for the permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 03:08 PM

"Could we have that again in English?"
Convenient dyslexia
Not sure I can manage it in words less than two syllables, but here goes.
The Labour Party decided
that, rather than return to the society that gave us appeasement to "Herr Hitler", the Great Depression and mass poverty, they would, in a very limited way, attempt to reward those who bore the brunt of the war by introducing affordable and secure homes, a health service paid for out of the taxes, and a voice in the workplace.
In other words, rather than return to the pre-war status quo, they attempted to make everybody a beneficiary of being British.
The Right fought all attempts do do that tooth and nail
How difficult was that.
"permanent expulsion of Jackie Walker."
Quite right too - this bastard has proposed that instead of remembering the Jews who died, that the remembrance should include the Gypsies, the homosexuals, the Trades Unionists and active opponents of Fascism and those considered mentally deficient , all of whom suffered a similar #ftr   
"In terms of Holocaust day wouldn't it be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced holocaust..."
How Antisemitic can you get!!!!
She should be flayed to death - expulsion is too good for her.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 04:55 PM

She says that she accepts David Schneider's definition of anti-Semitism, a definition which some of our posters and Labour party supporters should read and reflect on.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 05:37 PM

Holocaust Day is in fact supposed to be about all the other victims of genocide as well as the Jews who were killed by the Nazis. This tends to be ignored, which is what Jackie Walker ( herself of Jewish descent) was pointing out.

The slur of "antisenite" is increasingly used as a political weapon against people who are in no way antisemitic. Using it in this way is disrespectful of real victims of antisemitism, both in the past and in the present. It devalues the very term to use it in this way,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:04 PM

Hear hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 16 - 06:06 PM

And of course, Kevin, Bubo uses it in EXACTLY this way, and always has.

Same as it ever was............