BS: Labour party discussion

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: 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: 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 - 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: bobad
Date: 26 Sep 16 - 07:29 AM

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

You already have.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 16 - 09:42 AM

Amen to that.

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: 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: 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: The Sandman
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 03:44 AM

I agree,Jim.

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: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 02:17 AM

So we get to the eve of the results of the vote and things are looking as many predicted. It seems the only doubt about a Corbyn victory is how large it will be. Owen Smith and last night Liz Kendall on Question Time are both saying how important unity is and they will work for it, while simultaneously refusing to work with Corbyn and making it clear the only unity they are interested in is unifying around the position they hold.

Looks like we continue as we are, then, until candidates are selected for the next election. Unless you think differently?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 01:45 PM

Yes please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 01:07 PM

It is perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour. Forcefully made points and criticisms of the political views of others are totally legitimate, personal attacks are not.

Anybody disagree with that quote from the Labour Party's new policy statement on netiquette? I suggest we should try doing it that way for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 12:55 PM

Cheap sniping is beneath you.

Mr T? Bwaa-haa-haa-hah-ha-ha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 12:22 PM

Stop copying bobad. Cheap sniping is beneath you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 10:28 AM

Great pity then Shaw that you don't follow your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

Sarky my arse. The post was a straightforward suggestion that he checked the facts about what he was going on about before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

""I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers." - spot on Stanron - Tell us all Shaw what was it that you used to do?"
I presume this is irony!!
Well done Mr Quelch!!
On to the stupid step with you Shaw Minor
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:17 AM

Good explanation of the dispute

"I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers." - spot on Stanron - Tell us all Shaw what was it that you used to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:56 AM

Steve Shaw wrote: I suggest that you inform yourself before posting.

Why so tetchy Steve? I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers. There was no suggestion that they were not actually doctors. My point was that in the seventies there were loads of people in the building trade who would have welcomed earning that much overtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:12 AM

So sorry!
Wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:02 AM

The Huffington post describes Erdogan as "an elected dictator."
That is not "uninformed" or "a lie" but a view widely held by people who know a lot more about it that you two.

The Guardian,
"The attack on the judiciary is especially worrying in the light of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's contempt for human rights and the rule of law."
That is a description of a dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM

Yes Stanron, they are junior doctors. I strongly suspect from that comment that you don't know what that means. It doesn't mean recently fledged ex-student medics, guys and gals still in in their twenties, apprentices, trainees or probationers. I suggest that you inform yourself before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 04:31 AM

"Spoken like a true capitalist Jim.   "
No I don't Ake - I speak like someone who demands the best for all workers under the prevailing society and will do so as long as it remains.
"I never hear you promoting a change in the socio economic system"
You are joking, of course.
I have said from the beginning that the society we live under is "no loger fit for purpose" and needs changing - you, on the other hand, say it will never happen because "the British people will never stand for it".
Your "socialism" is a national one, with all the historical implications that brings.
Until society s changed, workers living under capitalism have a right to anything they can get
The idealists of this world believe they should sit on their hands and take what is given until "we educate them" (strange patronising attitude for a "socialist" to take) to think differently.
You really need to sort out your bizarre view of the class structure
By the way - a "capitalist" is someone who lives solely from invested capital, it's not a philosophy, it's an economic system in which none of us here are part of (to my knowledge) - you should know that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 03:40 AM

Spoken like a true capitalist Jim.   why do you profess socialism?

I never hear you promoting a change in the socio economic system

I think you are just a "liberal" living in a fantasy world.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 03:30 AM

"Junior Doctors are now being paid more for working less hours than they ever had to work before."
So - is not their contribution worth it?
The world we have had created for us is a dog eat dog one - why complain when working dogs manage to fight to retain what they have gained.
Change the world and you may have a point, but don't turn on the ones who do make a contribution to our lives.
I can recall exactly the same arguments being put forward about the "overpaid" printers working in the media.
They did well for themselves though being well organised, so their bosses, with the aid of the politicians, managed to turn the public against them.
Don't let it happen here.
The greed is at the top of the heap and it will stay there while they manage to focus the attention away from that fact.
"Cor, only 70 hours a week! Lazy bastards! "
My feelings exactly.
I started as an apprentice working five and a half days a week - 49 hours in all minus dinner break, back in the mid fifties.
Gradually and with a lot of hard, bitter argument, that was knocked down to 44 and then 40.
70 hours per week is medieval.
It's not as if their jobs aren't vital to our well-being.
To say their jobs at too important to allow them to take industrial action is crude blackmail and has been used against train and bus drivers... and virtually every group of workers who give a public service.
When bankers greed cocked up our economy, not only was the damage to the state paid for from our taxes, but the cockers-up paid themselves obscenely massive bonuses to put right the damage they had done.
It's a fine old world if you were born with enough silver spoons in your mouth!
More power to their elbows!
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 09:54 PM

And these are 'junior' doctors.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 09:46 PM

Back in the seventies I worked as a scaffolder. It was target based work. You got paid for the amount of scaffolding you erected. It was commonly known that the jobs that had the best conditions and the best opportunities to earn money went to the men who had families and mortgages. It wasn't hidden. It was positive policy. I agreed with it.

My point is that it was possible to earn 70 hours plus if the conditions were right and no one argued with family men with mortgages getting the best jobs. No one could earn 90 hours a week. If I had had the opportunity to do that back then I would have had a go. People are representing 70 or 90 hours a week as a penalty but doctors are being paid fot this. They are getting paid the money.

On my less than £7000 a year state pension I might dream of such wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:55 PM

Cor, only 70 hours a week! Lazy bastards!

What planet are you on? 😂