BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 01:50 PM

Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?
..............................

The latest court finding would apear to mean that the NEC could perfectly properly retrospectively bar from voting everyone who has joined the party after any date it chooses to name. Strange.

One thing that strikes me is that the manoeuvre by which recent members were barred from voting - waitng enough of those who would have opposed it has left the room before tabling the motion - was just the kid of "Trotskyite" ploy that Militant were always being accused of. I rather suspect that all those kind of tricks were very much part of theculture of Labour (and other parties) since they were founded.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 03:24 PM

Good move Mac
Promise I won't nause up this one - won't happen here.
This morning's newspaper tells that the cout decision will disbar 100,000 new embers from voting in the forthcoming election
Not that I'm a great Trotskyist supporter, but I only wish it were true that there were that many people committed to making the world a better place - no matter how idealistic.
The Labour party competition is little more than a fight between the Left who jettisoned any idea of a genuine change, and a possible light at the end of the tunnel that hopefully might not be a train.
God knows, the Party and the country could do with a change of direction and a new broom.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 03:49 PM

It is unlikely to do more than reduce Corbyn's majority a bit.
What happens next will be interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 04:19 PM

If Mr Corbyn wins, I'm afraid the careerists will slink back and wait for another chance to turn a real alternative into a bad copy.

I have always believed that in a capitalist society Labour's job is as a relevant opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 16 - 04:21 PM

The dishonest thing is the chorus of people MP protesting they only joined in the coup because they love Jeremy, And like his policies, but think he is unelectable.

The only chance they had of getting elected in the snap election that's coming was to get behind Jeremy and the mass membership, and they've blown it.

There won't be a centrally organised purge. But there are going to be an awful lot of fresh faces standing for Labour in the election. The trouble is there'll probably be a bunch of spoilers as well, deselected former MPs aiming to split the vote and ensure a Tory victory, as revenge.b

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 03:44 AM

I think it's time for a new party that truly represents the progressive left. Labour is to divided and self-absorbed to be an effective opposition and our democracy needs that now more than ever, particularly in the wake of the Brexit vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 04:15 AM

"but think he is unelectable."
Wellllll!!!
One of the problems facing all political groups wanting to bring genuine change is that they believe that the only way to do so is by watering down those policies to the point that they are so anodyne as to become useless,,,,, and then what?
Blair was typical - someone who started out full of reforming zeal who was sucked into the Parliamentary career machine and turned into a monster of the right, removing the Labour Party of its Socialist principles as he went.
Here in Ireland, The Labour Party learned the hard way; it threw in its lot with an establishment party and totally self-destructed, setting the Party back decades, maybe permanently.
Luckily, here we have a P.R. electoral system which allows for smaller, limited-interest groups to maintain some degree of checks and balances, along with a wafer-thin majority between the two major parties - so we get some of the wrongs righted.
This could never have happened under a first-past-the-post system.
Corbyn's leadership offers a (slim) chance of change - he strikes me as someone with his political heart on the right (left) side of his body.
Maybe those on the right who are trying to remove him are more "electable", but what difference will their being elected make to the present mess, if their policies are indistinguishable from those in charge?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:19 AM

What is the "progressive left"....That is the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:40 AM

It might indeed be time for a new party that truly represents the progressive left. But the electoral system we've got makes that virtually impossible. And unfortunately the left within the Labour Party is unable to grasp that reality, and recognise the tactics needed to achieve a change to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:56 AM

If by tactics you mean a move in the way of presenting our ideas as all singing all dancing.....then they will fail.
We need to be honest and explain that socialism will mean sacrifices not just by the rich but by the whole of society.
It will be a long journey and it won't always be pleasant, we have become used to a benefit culture which tells us that we may abdicate responsibility for anything which befalls us; but people must be made aware that in the long term there is just no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:05 AM

I mean a one off electoral deal to elect a short term government pledged to bring in a better election system, and resign the same day, so we can get on with real politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:17 AM

I think that would be counter productive if the intention was to install a socialist system
Socialism is a state of mind.

Proportional representation would result in the usual ineffective talking shop.....we are rapidly running out of time.
The electorate requires a hard dose of reality and some political education.
I think Mr Corbyn has made a fairly good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:20 AM

Explaining an idea before putting it in to operation is doomed before it is even considered.
Any party worth its salt has two objectives - first thing is to fight to improve the lot of people living under the present system; in doing so, you not only manage to ease the burden but you win their respect for your efforts on practical matters.
Altering the system itself is either a matter of evolution or revolution.
The idea of winning hearts and minds for a political system has never been tried and is doomed to failure.
"benefit culture" is a piece of right wing jargon designed to turn entitlements in benevolent gifts.
Any civilised society has to create a safety net to cater for those who are unable to cope, for whatever reason.
That there will be those who will dishonestly take advantage of entitlements is as inevitable as there are crooked and greedy bankers and corrupt and incompetent politicians.
Pointing the finger at the dishonest among the less well off is dong the right's job for them.
Any society that refuses to cater for its less fortunate members is a one that has reverted to barbarism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:25 AM

"But the electoral system we've got makes that virtually impossible"

I wonder though. Labour's infighting and lack of cohesion at a time of crisis has (and is) costing the country dear, and I think there is a need for a party promoting compassionate, humanist policies based around fairness and equality. The LibDems are a busted flush, UKIP have done their job and are now redundant except for the odd disillusioned tory and assorted right-wingers and were never interested in compassion or equality anyway, and their protest vote will probably drift back to the new more right wing tories.

So perhaps there will be room for a more radical left of centre party that represents the people rather than the establishment (as all the other parties do). Whilst I like Corbyn, I don't think he's a natural leader and that's what we need now. A new party might give that person (whomever that may be) a chance to shine and lead us out of this Tory/UKIP/Brexit dystopia we are facing and thus leave Labour to the unions and Blairites to scrap over ad infinitum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:49 AM

A new party might get a good few votes, but precious few seats. After all the Greens got a million votes and one seat, Ukip got three million and one seat.

In Scotland the SNP was able to break out because of PR in the Scottish national election, provide an effective government, and then wipe out the Scottish Labour Party on its right (which got 50% of the vote, and one seat in Parliament on a first past the post system).

This isn't a marginal issue, it's crucial. We get impressed at how the radical left has achieved stuff in Spain and Greece - in Britain they'd just be squabbling fringe political grouplets.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM

But this is my point: we don't have an effective second party.

Is it possible the Labour movement has run it's course? With globalisation, a population of workers that are totally detached from unions and the likelihood that without the EU to temper the tories worst excesses, worker's rights are going to be slowly whittled to insignificance, we need a new sort of politician that understands how this affects the ordinary working folk of this country.

We're not going to change the voting system in the short term and Labour didn't show much enthusiasm for it last time as they supported retaining FPTP. Time to get rid of these old world politicos and let a new generation lead us out of a potential disaster for working people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:21 AM

Electoral reform is in fact a short tem thing. You have to put other things aside to achieve it. Think longterm and it doesn't get changed. Labour's failure to get behind the Alternative vote in the referendum on it was cynical stupidity, which has probably landed us with a Tory government for the rest of my life and well beyond.

They rightly saw that AV would see the existing Labour party break in two, and saw that as more important than anything else. They still do.

The best hope is that a break-up of the United Kingdom might force a Constitutional Convention that changes things.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:19 AM

Labour has painted itself into a corner that it can't get out of.

The Labour Party membership elect "The Leader", come any General Election he naturally will be the Prime Minister should Labour win that General Election. If the majority of those who have flocked to become members of the Labour Party are hard left "Socialist Workers Party" then "their" man wins the Leadership election. Unfortunately the 670,000 members of the Labour Party cannot get their man into Government for that they need the votes of those who traditionally vote Labour and at the moment under Jeremy Corbyn those "traditional labour voters" will more likely as not vote for UKIP or "Independent" candidates if "Momentum" deselects good existing constituency MPs because they challenged Jeremy Corbyn's "leadership".

Kevin if you end up with a Conservative Government for the rest of your life it is because the Labour Governments of the past have failed to do anything that they promised the electorate. In general in elections, political parties in opposition don't win elections, sitting Governments lose them because they have failed to deliver.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:44 AM

If I have a Tory government for the rest of my life an immediate reason is because we didn't get electoral reform. There's a majority for left of centre government in England just as there is in Scotland. Squabbles on the let, however messy, don't alter that.
......................
If MPs find themselves deselected it will be because they didn't have the political intelligence of newts. The outcome of the referendum gave Labour an incredible opportunity. The Tories were in a shambles, the fact thay Jeremy, like the overwhelming mass of Remain voters was not overenthusiastic about the EU, meant he was the right leader to help win back those Labour voters who had gone for Leave.

So they chose their moment to mount a ludicrous coup, in the face of overwhelming opposition from party members all over the country.

Crazy politics. And they have the nerve to talk about "electability"?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:48 AM

In the last few days the split has become even deeper and even nastier.
Reconciliation has become impossible now, so what next?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 12:06 PM

Well Teribus is correct traditional Labour voters have been left with no constituency, they see Ukip actually achieving something which affects their lives in a "progressive" way the removal of the UK from the EU
The war which has smouldered for years between socialists and the traditional Union backed Labour voters the people who promoted Blair because he could get them power, seems to be flaring up again.
Labour people who see membership of the EU as beneficial to our own young and working people are kidding themselves......they conflate social policies with political policies......let these rebel MPs go to their natural home in the Liberal Party and leave the Labour Party to sink or swim......my bet is that in a couple of years we will have our country and our self respect back.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 01:19 PM

have our country and our self respect back.

Who's holding them hostage?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 01:43 PM

"Labour voters have been left with no constituency,"
Traditional Labour voters would not touch Ukip or any other racist-based party with a barge-pole anti-racism and anti-bigotry was a founding principle of Labour.
That Labour, Conservative and Liberals have been swept up in the Anti Immigrant/refugee hysteria is the result of media scaremongering inspired by right-wing policies rather than party shortcomings - the old reactionary ploy of setting one group of working people against the other evidenced by the Brexit fiasco and the trail of wreckage it has left in its wake.
No doubt there will be those who blame the infux of foreigners for the results of that fiasco - you can't keep a good bigot down.
One of the unwritten rules has always been that whenever there is a crisis out come the bigots - never more so than at present.
I can never remember the race card having been played to the extent as it is being used at present - not ever.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 02:40 PM

If "traditional Labour voters" means people who in previous elections have voted Labour, I'm afraid there is ample evidence that plenty of them have voted for Ukip.

The fact that anti-bigotry might have been a founding principle of the Labour party doesn't guarantee that it still is a guiding principle for all around the party. After all, so was socialism...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 02:47 PM

The policy of "Free movement of Labour" was what set one group of workers against another, nothing to do with racism bigotry or anything else, simply an age old capitalist "ploy" to make cheap labour available and drive down wages for those competing for jobs.

The most ridiculous and short term policy ever devised, they had not the sense to work out what the effects of this policy would be on infrastructure like housing, public services, health etc.

Bloody good riddance!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 03:44 PM

The elected leader has said that the elected deputy leader (not part of any coup), "is talking nonsense – and he knows it."

There is no coming back from that.

Watson hit back on Saturday night, claiming the evidence was "incontrovertible". He said: "The overwhelming majority of new members joined the Labour party because they want to build a fairer and more equal society. But there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that a small group of Trotskyite activists have taken leading roles in the Labour party or are seeking to do so.

"They are also explicitly targeting Young Labour and Labour student clubs with the aim of recruiting new members. That is beyond dispute. We can't deal with this problem until we acknowledge it exists."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 03:50 PM

was what set one group of workers against another,
It most certainly was not - 1.2 million Brits were living and wotrking in Europe - in 2015, at least 30,00 Britins were drawing unemployment benefit there
It was a two-way street that has now been closed - one thing is certain - there will be no jobs for those forced to come home to return to
This is really basic Ukip-BNP propaganda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 04:00 PM

30,000 Brits of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 06:18 PM

in 2015, at least 30,00 Britins were drawing unemployment benefit there
It was a two-way street that has now been closed

Those 30,000 Brits will continue to draw benefit in 2016 and possibly 2017 and possibly 2017 and in 2018 - tell me Jom what street has been closed? The clock doesn't start to tick until the UK formally triggers Article 50 and thereafter it is at least a minimum of two-and-a-half-years before we leave.

Believe ne as far as Brexit goes, people will do what is in their mutual best interest - it would be madness for them to do anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:23 PM

My experience of people is that we are frequently likely to fail to do what is in our best interests, individual or mutual. That's not "madness", it's human fallability.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Frug
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:41 PM

Just for interest .....How many people posting on this and other threads about the Labour Party have actually got first hand knowledge of Jeremy Corbyn ..... if not how did you formulate your opinions of him?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 02:40 AM

I don't wish to re-cover ground already somewhat unpleasantly covered, but, as I see it, Britain finds itself in danger of falling in line with the distinct move to the right that is taking place in the world today.
Britain exited from the E.U. purely on the basis of a racist campaign - stop immigration and block the refugees - Ukip based its entire campaign on those slogans, and the rest of them followed suit to one degree or another
The narrow Brexit victory has already proved an economic and political disaster, a forced reshuffle of our government, replacing it with one that has appointed a racist into the position of Foreign Secretary - a disturbing shift to the right.
The predicted economic consequences of Brexit have already appeared and, it is reckoned, it will be at least ten years before the economy can possibly re-stabilise.
Extremist right-wing groups in Europe have taken the cue from Britain and are attempting to stage similar exits - no doubt, with similar consequences to national economies - the Right in Europe are on the march again, once more using racism as a basis for exit - our nearest neighbour, France stands to have one of the Le Pen in charge in the near future and AUSTRIA narrowly avoided electing a Neo Nazi.
EUROPEAN RIGHT
Further afield, the U.S. is now facing the possibility of a blunedring, loud-mouthed moronic right-winger who makes George W. look like Mahatma Ghandi, into the White House
Not a comfortable world to hand on to our kids.
The Labour Party seems to have weathered a rather vicious attempt to label it antisemititic, probably instigated by the right-wing Israeli regime attempting to off-set the boycott of its goods in protest of its war crimes in Gaza.
The party now faces a leadership contest between a relatively inexperienced, but, it appears, principled socialist and a candidate supported by the New Labour followers of the possible war criminal,Tony Blair - he who plunged us into the Oil Wars.   
It seems to me that we need a bit of real opposition to what's happening based on principle and compassion rather than political Parliamentary gain.
"Jom what street has been closed?"
Not while the adults are talking if you don't mind Teribus.
I have no intentions of re-opening a quadralogue with our three resident rights here - especially the bullying ones, incapable of shedding the open aggression
I won't be responding to you or your two extremist mates.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 02:56 AM

The trouble is Mr McGrath, that we very often have conflicting interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:05 AM

Ah well, they've all turned up. Another thread down the pan.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:30 AM

The Labour Party seems to have weathered a rather vicious attempt to label it antisemititic, probably instigated by the right-wing Israeli regime

Probably not!
That is a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Israel has other preoccupations than our Labour Party!
All the accusations came from lifelong Labour people, like Sadiq Khan, not Mossad agents.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 04:12 AM

"How many people have first hand knowledge of Jeremy Corbyn?"

The same question could of course be asked or Cameron, or May, or Gove or any other politician. But what is certainly the case is that Corbyn has spoken at more open rallies with 1000+ attendances than any politicians I have known. I have spoken personally to him, but only for about three minutes. Even so, that is 100% more than any other potential prime minister I have been asked to support.

As to how I form my opinions, it is based on his track record. Many commentators see a history of rebellion against the party leader. It is as easy to see it as a solid adherence to a set of principles. Now, whether that is realistic or idealistic is a matter of judgement on our part.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 04:35 AM

"Ah well, they've all turned up."
Even you Stu
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 05:03 AM

"Even you Stu"

Yeah, whatever. Another thread wrecked. Off you all go now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:18 AM

"Yeah, whatever. Another thread wrecked. Off you all go now."
We could wreck it equally quickly by arguing with each other Stu - waddya think
Please give it a rest and let's get on with the discussion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:40 AM

"The Labour Party seems to have weathered a rather vicious attempt to label it antisemititic"

Again? There's more the Labour movement than this. You've dominated one thread with your constant bickering over this subject, now you're going to wreck this one too.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:48 AM

"I don't wish to re-cover ground already somewhat unpleasantly covered"

An excellent maxim, Jim. It would make for a much more useful discussion if we all stuck to it. The other thread is still there for being hyperactive.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:53 AM

"The other thread is still there for being hyperactive."
Nah - been immmunised
"You've dominated one thread with your constant bickering"#And nor you are attempting to dominate it with yours
I'e just resolved to rid myself of three pests - pease don't become one of them while we might have something to say to each other
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 07:25 AM

"Since the thread about 'Whither the Labour Party" has drifted far from home and turned into a rather unpleasant series of skirmishes about matters of peripheral relevance, I thought I'd start up one where we could talk about the current hurly burly. Preferably without getting into slanging matches. But that might be too much to ask. Coherent and even-tempered slanging matches, at least?"

Could I remind people that this was the OP from McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 08:54 AM

I am a recently joined member of the labour party, I am not a trostkyite, or a member of any other organisation.
IMO WATSON IS REMINSCENT OF BILLY BUNTER AND PAT RABBITE, one always waiting for the next postal order and the other a careerist andself serving fat cat

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 11:09 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if being a regular at the Mudcat might count as belonging to a proscribed organisation...

How do you join a politocal party without being an entryist?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 11:19 AM

According to Wiki,
"Entryism (also referred to as entrism or enterism, or as infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being "entered" is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are an organisation in their own right."

Just joining for genuine reasons does not make someone an entryist.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 11:22 AM

"Britain exited from the E.U. purely on the basis of a racist campaign - stop immigration and block the refugees - Ukip based its entire campaign on those slogans, and the rest of them followed suit to one degree or another"

Our open doors policy on immigration introduced by Labour under Blair was a mistake that even they latterly admitted was wrong.

The one constant reference to immigration throughout the EU Referendum from those campaigning for the UK's exit from the EU is better summed up as - "Stop uncontrolled immigration" and regain control as to who is granted admission to our country.

UKIP neither directed or ran the Leave part of the Brexit Campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 01:08 PM

"The narrow Brexit victory has already proved an economic and political disaster"

Well not according to the examination of the Remain Campaign's predictions of "doom'n'gloom" in todays press. Fact is that that "narrow Brexit victory has" resulted in very little change. All it proved was that the Labour Party as Her Majesty's Opposition lacked any real leadership at all and that when history looks back at this highly significant time of change for both the United Kingdom and Europe it will record the fact that instead of overseeing the change and pushing the Government of the day - Labour was locked in a highly divisive and bitter internal argument over leadership of their Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 01:18 PM

A genuine reason for joining a party is that you can see the potential to make it a better organisation for fighting for fairness for working people, the sick, the disabled, ethnic minorities, children, the elderly and those unable to find work. In other words, to change the party. You don't just join a party because you think everything is just hunkydory the way it is. Entryism is is an invention of the right in order to demonise the Labour Party. Since time immemorial people have at various times joined (or at least supported) the Tories in droves out of sheer self-interest. Wanna call that entryism too? The right are very good at inventing unpleasant attributes to ascribe to their adversaries, a bit like "human shields" when you're invading another country. Entryism is one such.

And thank you Stu for complaining that "they've all turned up" before I turned up. Nice to know that I'm not among your persona non grata! 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 02:09 PM

"Fact is that that "narrow Brexit victory has" resulted in very little change."

Certainly has made a difference in science.