BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:48 PM

"That is why I am so vehement about the shower of killers who are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews" - Jim Carroll

Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 04:48 PM

There is more to a discussion than repeating the same thing"Yes it is" "No it isn't" ad nauseum.

Basically there are two definitions of antisemitism. One is that it is about being hostile to Jews as such and to Judaism.. This is the antisemitism that we all see as despicable and unacceptable.

The other is that, since most Jews in the Jewish diaspora identify with Israel, any criticism of Israel which is over a certain level amounts to antisemitism - the level which is seen as acceptable varying according to undefined criteria. And that definition means that many people who detest the antisemitism that consists of being hostile to Jews as such and Judaism find themselves definned and targetted ss antisemites, even if they are themselves Jewish.

There's neve going to be agreement between those who accept these different definitions. It's really a waste of energy batting it back and forth.

There are many diasporas - people with ethnic and cultural links to particular countries, thoug they may live far away. I can't think of any other example where criticism of the actions of a country is taken as hostility to the diaspora which has roots in that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:01 PM

Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic.

Careful.........ha, ha, the little Irish Jew hating Nazi has been spewing his anti-Semitic vomit on here forever, MGM had him pegged too.

On a side note, an acquaintance is planning a research project examining anti-Semitism and social media. I suggested she check out Mudcat - she did and said it's a gold mine. I look forward to reading her findings - will post links to her web site when available. Should prove interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:11 PM

And yet more disgusting BooSpew. Is there no end to this garbage?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:15 PM

Moderators, can we shut this train-wreck down? Enough of Bubo is too much. Why his aggressive BS is condoned is beyond me, when other posts hardly approaching his level of hatefullness disappear.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM

Or we could just accept that this particular aspect has been talked through and any further posts about it are recognised as as intentional disruption and completely ignored. Someone start up a thread about definitions of antisemitism if they feel up to it.
....................
Rumours in the press of Tony Blair considering getting back into politics. Maybe he'd fit into Theresa May's reformed Tory party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:42 PM

his level of hatefullness [sic]

Ha, ha you're quite the card there Smeg, I take it you don't read the posts of those to whom you are a nodding sycophant.

In the words of one of your fellow travelers "your non-moderatorial injunction is not appreciated, thank you very much"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:09 PM

You're wasting your time, Kevin. I've tried it. For reasons best known to them, the mods are happy to let these two trolls wreck these threads. My successful appeal to the mods to close the other thread has backfired, as the trolls have simply migrated to this one, for which I owe you an apology. Unfortunately, at least one good-hearted soul can't resist responding. I suspect that the mods just leave us Brits to it. If they actually ever dip into this thread and see what's going on, then I politely suggest to them that they should close it forthwith. This part of the board can't survive for much longer if bobad and Keith A of Hertford are allowed to stay here. It really is as simple as that. I'm off to sweeter climes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:56 PM

It's tempting to respond, and I've often done it. But it's not that hard to resist the temptation. There are always more relevant topics..

"Offer it up"...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:06 PM

Both those two would have been booted out of every other forum I've been on years ago. They are not here for debate and they are allowed to get away with everything. Better to write letters to the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 02:21 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 08 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM

"we could just accept that this particular aspect has been talked through and any further posts about it are recognised as as intentional disruption and completely ignored"

You men something like let's just bury our heads in the sand, do nothing and just hope things quieten down and the whole row will all go away. Like the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership is trying to do? The trouble with the man is that he has been a disruptive wrecker all his life he does not know how to build anything and he is too scared to impose discipline on his "Momentum" supporters without whom he'd be toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM

"Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic."
I'm not a member of the Labour Party
The Israelis have managed to thow a smokescreen around the term "atisemitism" in order to avoid the consequences of their own behaviour so, if it;'s all right with you, I fully intend to avoid all politically expedient definitions and stick with the one I can reach for on my shelf whenever I might be in doubt.
"Full Definition of anti–Semitism
Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
Merriam Webster dictionary"
Can't see a mention of "Israeli regime" there at all.
As you support this bunch of killers, I presume yours include "anything that criticises Israeli policy".
Mac's second definition doesn't quite fit because it has far too many implications.
Judaism includes the entire planet, not just Israel; while I have no doubt that they all support the State of Israel - as far as I know, we have no idea what Jewish people feel about the behaviour of the present regime.
I didn't get married to a Jewish girl back in 1960s Manchester because I had a blazing row with her mother, a Holocaust survivor, when she described many of the Israeli leaders who were coming to the fore as "a bunch of Fascists" -
Her daughter and I had just from the cinema after sitting through though hours of the film 'Shoah' and I couldn't come to terms with the idea of Jewish Fascism - I don't have any trouble nowadays.
Some of the fiercest (and most humanely rational) critics of Israeli policy are Jewish - all "self-hating Jews" to the Netunyahus of this world.
"Careful.........ha, ha, the little Irish Jew hating Nazi has been spewing his anti-Semitic vomit on here forever, MGM had him pegged too."
Please, please keep this up Bobad; it present us with a perfect rxample of exactly the type of fascism I am referring to - see - you do have a purpose in life.
For the sake of accuracy, I'm English, aim racist smears at the right nation.
Whatever their faults, the Irish tend to be incredibly tolerant of and friendly to other nations - the Jewish people living here are forever making public statements to that fact - but there again - they'd probably only a bunch of "self haters", so what is their word worth!!
"his level of hatefullness"
It seems the moderators view Bobad's vicious bile as a useful example, as I do not even his mates here have the bottle to back him up (with one exception)
"he is too scared to impose discipline"
There goes that Fascist tendency" again - whatever happened to democracy?
Corbyn is an unknown, but one of the outstanding features of his leadership is that he is where he is with grass-roots support, despite massive and extremely disry opposition from his Parliamentary colleagues and a propaganda campaign that is reckoned to have cost the Israelis somewhere between six and ten billion.
Long may he remain there - or at least long enough to see if he lives up to his promises.
I don't agree with Steve - plenty here left to discuss rather than let the baddies win
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:08 AM

Jim,
there is everything about supporting the bunch of antisemite monsters who are running it (Israel).

"Antisemitic." Self-hating Jews?

Steve, I am discussing current Labour Party issues that are disputed by you and others.
The discussion is not over, and it is perfectly reasonable to post evidence that it is a serious issue for Labour and that you are wrong to deny that it is.

I remind you that you and Jim tried to hijack both threads and make them about Israel and events in Lebanon over 30 years ago instead of the Labour Party now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM

"I'm not a member of the Labour Party"

Makes not a ha'pence worth of difference by the definition of a major political organisation recognised throughout the world your remarks are regarded as being anti-Semitic.

"a propaganda campaign that is reckoned to have cost the Israelis somewhere between six and ten billion"

Now then Jim, by that "Israelis" there do you mean the "Israeli Regime"? Or the "Israeli people"? If the former then that can only be through loss of tax revenue which means that the Israeli people have taken an even bigger hit so it is the latter that get hit either way. Who do you mean when you speak of the Israeli people? Jews, Arabs, Christians? Or just the Jews of the region?

By hitting the Israeli people you demonstrate that you have no interest in peace at all, you want "pay back", you want "revenge", you support who you do hoping to see that achieved and that will only be achieved with the annihilation of the Jewish people - and you have the gall to shout "Fascist" at others.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:41 AM

"I don't agree with Steve - plenty left here to discuss..."

I know there is but that's not the issue. We have two confirmed trolls infesting this thread, and, reading Teribus's latest offering, it looks like he's made it a triumvirate. Discuss it till the cows go home but you won't progress. This stuttering issue has only been kept alive by isolated ne'er-do-wells in Labour, the gutter press and some seriously misguided and dishonest factions of the pro-Israel lobby. And on here we have three of their lackeys who have an agenda that does not include honest and measured discussion. Give it up, Jim. The thread is fatally polluted.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

He who calls others trolls is the one who has been threatened with suspension more than once and has many posts removed - see the irony there Stevie?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

"Makes not a ha'pence worth of difference by the definition of a major political organisation recognised throughout the world "
You mean like the Democrats, the Republicans, Likud.....
Additions to the centuries/millennia old definition have been put into placr by politicians, and have been re-adapted and distorted to suit their own ends, or, in Labour's case as political expediency in order to re-unite the Party.
I really want no part of anything of that.
Any definition that moves away from the persecution of Jews is, as far as I am concerned, the thin end of a very long wedge.   
If and Israeli General, an ex chief of Mossad, many thousands of Israeli citizens, hundreds of Holocaust survivors and their descendants, and Albert Einstein can make this comparison, I'm damn sure I can.
""Israelis" there do you mean the "Israeli Regime"? Or the "Israeli people"
I speak of the Israeli regime of course - I have no argument with an Israeli State - my family fought for the ideal before it became a reality.
The immediate situation to be dealt with is the terrotising of the Gazans, stop that and I have no doubt that the Israeli people - no matter what their ethnic origin and religious beliefs, are capable of dealing with that internally, given that there is no external interference by way of U.N. Vetoes, which hopefully, will make the regime answerable to Human Rights laws.
The estimated cost of the propaganda is nothing compared to the assessment of how hard the Israeli economy will be hit if it is successful
Hopefully, what worked for Apartheid South Africa can work again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:06 AM

I have started another thread, "What does antisemitism mean.?"

I suggest anyone carry on this discussion does it there - while it may be germane to the Labour Party, its implications are not limited to that, and there really are other aspects of Labour as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:32 AM

No boycott of any "regime" in the world has ever had any effect at all - not even the boycott of South Africa, which was started in 1959 and was a dead duck by 1966.

The BDS campaign hits only the people, not the "regime", the Israeli Government's main responsibility (In fact the primary responsibility of any national government) is to safeguard the territorial integrity and security of the state and the people, and the people of Israel fully realise, respect and appreciate that - that is why they voted for the Government they currently have.

Another facet of this question is the fact tht Israel can survive perfectly well without Gaza and without the West Bank - it has done so from the State's inception. Unfortunately Gaza and the West Bank cannot survive economically without Israel, so hit, or attempt to hit, Israel economically then it is the "Palestinians" and now apparently the "Gazans" who pick up the tab for it.

Terrorising the Gazans {whoever the they may be - I mean apart from the prats who since 2005 have indiscriminately fired over 15,000 missiles into Israel in the hope of killing as many Israeli civilians, men, women and children as possible) is easy tell the "Gazans" to stop attacking Israel and to formally recognise the State of Israel and acknowledge that it has the right to exist free from attack or threat of attack. Now oddly enough Carroll that is a thing the Arabs of the region have never, ever tried in the 68 years since Israel became a reality, recognised by the UN. But as the Arabs of the region do not appear to even consider giving this course of action house room, the next time things "kick-off" there should be no stopping it - next time it gets fought out to the finish.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 11:31 AM

This stuttering issue has only been kept alive by isolated ne'er-do-wells in Labour,

Sadiq Kahn? The entire NEC? Come off it Steve.

the gutter press

BBC? Channel 4, Independent? Huff Post? Guardian? Come off it Steve.

and some seriously misguided and dishonest factions of the pro-Israel lobby.

All of them actually. No wonder you want this discussion shut down. You have no case!

CH 4 News Presenter Cathy Newman, "Would you acknowledge now that the Party does have a serious problem with antisemitism."

Chakrabarti, "I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM

Pull the plug. PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 12:14 PM

"2005 have indiscriminately fired over 15,000 missiles into Israel in the hope of killing as many Israeli civilians, men, women and children as possible"
Didn't you miss a bit?
COMPARATIVE DEATH TOLLS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

Wouldn't the other thread be a better home for the last few posts?
...............

Not too surprisingly there a still signs of continuing bellyaching and sabotage from the Corbynphobic suicide squad.

There's a time to cut your losses and make friends. Someone who I anticpate is going to surprise people and do that I predict will be Liz Kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 03:11 PM

Wouldn't the other thread be a better home for the last few posts?
They would Mac
Knee jerk reaction - sorry.
Won't happen again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 02:40 AM

"Shut it down" Greg F.? Why because you and your pals are being forced to accept as reality what you have all denied?

Kevin if you want me to I can dig up posts on previous threads where Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll have furiously and indignantly told others that they have absolutely no right to dictate what others post and where.

Like all good "socialists" it seems that:

"There's one sauce for the goose and another for the gander" and/or "Do as I say, not as I do".

Jim Carroll - 09 Oct 16 - 12:14 PM - Comparative death tolls? Since when has war featured equivalence? Since 1920 the Arabs of the region have deliberately and repeatedly chosen violence before peace. Fortunately they are not very good at it compared to those who they have publicly and repeatedly declared they wish to "annihilate", "kill" and "drive into the sea" - perhaps Jim it is time for them to "Give peace a chance" - but you and I know with a sad certainty that that is not going to happen with the result that for every one Israeli they manage to kill, the Israelis acting in defence of their own population will kill nine Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 04:44 AM

Wasn't that what the Nazi's used to do. Kill one of ours and we'll kill 10 of yours, normally civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:17 AM

""Shut it down" Greg F.? Why because you and your pals are being forced to accept as reality what you have all denied?"
No - because that's what we have been asked to do by the OP
You appear to have caught a nasty dose of Keith's "I won" disease
We have been requested to take these arguments elsewhere and let those who wish to continue with the subject of this thread - I suggest that's what we do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:34 AM

Raggytash - 10 Oct 16 - 04:44 AM

Ehmmm No Raggy it was the other way around, if you look at the numbers of civilians killed. Germany attacked British centres of population in their bid to break the morale of the people - they killed ~62,500 civilians. After Coventry Churchill made the survivors a promise that he made good on as when we turned the German's weapon and strategy against them using airpower to degrade their ability to wage war and break the morale of the German population - we killed ~600,000 civilians.

Tell you what Raggy if you are attempting to equate living under Israeli occupation to living under the Nazis then ask people who are actually living under Israeli "occupation" - The Druze Arabs of the Golan Heights - go and ask them who they'd rather living under the democratically elected Israeli Government or Assad? You'll get their answer in less than a nano-second.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:40 AM

IIRC Jim, Keith A as OP of a number of threads has been told by you in the past that being OP does not mean that you "own" the thread or that you can direct what is discussed. One rule for all Carroll - not a "socialist" principle I know, but get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:54 AM

It would appear from this and other threads that your answer to everything is violence.

Not that I'm at all surprised by that. Violence resonates through most of your postings and if anything is getting worse as time passes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:00 PM

Raggytash - 10 Oct 16 - 08:54 AM

"It would appear from this and other threads that your answer to everything is violence."

Hardly Raggy, I am all for peace through negotiation. But where there is no intention, or even desire to negotiate, what are the alternatives, especially when you consider that the side so set against negotiation has chosen violence since 1920.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:02 PM

"One rule for all Carroll -"
And you were doing so well - doesn't take long for the civilised mask to slip and we're back to the neanderthal.
The OP opened a ew thread in order that those of us who wished to discuss Israel should use it while those who wished to continue with the Labour Party could stay with this one.
As we've all played our part in ***** up threads, this seemed reasonable to me - not a rule, just consideration for others.
I'm happy to discuss Atisemitism on this thread as it has a direct relevance to the subject, what happened in Israel in the 8th century. or 1920, or whenever does not, and I'm happy to accept that, though I'm sure you are not, being the feller you seem to be.
Keith is one of those who happily yomps his way through any thread discussing whatever takes his fancy until he paints himself into a corner, then she squeals "thread drift" - it happens a lot.
Enjoy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:23 PM

Perhaps Teribus you could look back through your posts over the past two years or so.

They have become increasingly aggressive and increasingly belligerent (agreed, sometimes with provocation)

It has come to a stage where now I, and I suspect many others, merely anticipate not a rational discussion but yet another tirade of bitterness and vitriol.

As this is apparent to myself and other people, nothing you post has any impact at all other than to confirm our suppositions.

In other words your contributions are seen as worthless. A huge change from just a short time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

I repeat my suggestion - no question of dictating, Teribus. It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 04:35 PM

Teribus. It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people.

Some hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:50 AM

" It's more about good manners, and respect towards other people. "

Funny thing about that Kevin is that both are a two-way street.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 02:25 AM

"Perhaps Teribus you could look back through your posts over the past two years or so."

If I did Raggy I think that they would show the opposite.

As to "rational discussion", you and the others commonly referred to by me as "the usual suspects" have never been interested in "rational discussion" - the aim stated on numerous threads was simply "to take the piss" - do you want quotes?

You and your pals for reasons best known to yourselves decided to "mob" a couple of other members of this forum. It is something that is very ugly and disturbing to watch, something that I certainly was not going to let stand without a challenge.

So far on every thread you and your "pals" have invaded you have been made to look foolish and your supposed arguments have been demolished by recorded and documented fact, reason and logic - every time Raggy. The latest trolling exercise above the line by two of your troll pals who have to sign in as GUESTS now is a classic case in point.

Now if you, or anyone else, wishes to point out where in this this post, I have displayed bad temper, or have been belligerent or aggressive I would like them to explain where and how. I ask because past experience has shown me that you and the others I speak of are very good at throwing out accusations and allegations that none of you, for what I think are very obvious reasons, can ever seem to substantiate. In writing the above I have only described as I have found to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 03:50 AM

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:02 AM

You should know Raggy, you should know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:21 AM

Back to the Labour Party.

Your latest, fast tracked Labour Peer seems to have been exposed as the hypocrite she undoubtedly is. Another classic "socialist" of the "Do as I say, not as I do" variety. Labour fights against selective education and seeks to deny parents any choice or say for that matter in the education of their children, yet she sees nothing wrong at all in her exercising what she sees as her right to place her children in fee paying schools, because she is doing what she sees as doing the best for her children - the rest of us given the Labour Party line on this have to make do with what they say is the best for our children.

This by the way is the same woman who gave everyone a free pass on past transgressions while at the same time complains about "racist" and "misogynist" hate mail she has received from those within her own party. Yet according to Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll who of course know better than anybody else what is going on in the Labour Party, even those in charge of the Labour Party - and Jim Carroll says he isn't even a member of it - that there are no problems in the Labour Party. Baroness Chakrabarti however describes it as a Party that is in "Civil War" - no problems indeed eh?

Same with houses wasn't it? "Do as I say, Not as I do", you couldn't own your own Council House under Labour, you had no right to something that you'd paid for all your life. At that time Wilson owned what? Five houses wasn't it? Callaghan owned three Healey two?

Hypocrites the lot of them, they always have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:48 AM

I would have thought that anyone could see the difference between owning a house and owning a COUNCIL house built for the specific purpose of providing decent affordable RENTED accommodation.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 10 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

I repeat my suggestion - no question of dictating, Teribus.

Not you attempting to dictate anything Kevin, but others of a political persuasion similar to your own are rather vehemently.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:04 AM

I'm sorry to say it Raggytash, but Teribus is right, hypocrisy does abound in the Labour party, especially regarding housing.

That is why I believe that any move towards a proper sustainable society will be a long term journey....any talk of reforming the system is bound to fail, as reform is not recognised by capitalism.
When it becomes unprofitable or uncompetitive to operate, it moves on.

There must be a real will to change society, with all of the sacrifices that entails......more evolution than revolution these days. The sixties generation are old people now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:14 AM

Both Chakrabarti and Diane Abbott send their own children to private schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 05:31 AM

As far as I recall Ake, the Labour Party has never said you cannot own a house. It had said, and rightly so in my mind, you cannot own a council house.

However that experiment was blown out of the water, most notably of Margaret Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:07 AM

Most Labour voters round this area immediately took out mortgages to buy their council houses, at extortionate rates.

Some bought and re-sold quickly, they made a huge profit, but those who saw out their mortgage till the housing bubble burst made a bad deal. my old uncle used to say to me, "forget yer Communism" we're aw Tories under the skin"......he was right, we need to reform ourselves.

Of course most of the Labour hypocrisy pertains to education and private medicine.

I think our leaders are well aware of this innate hypocrisy, it shows a lack of self belief in most of their speech's and pronouncements. That is why people respond to folk like Thatcher and Farage.....they actually believe what they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

Must have been different where you are to the Salford I lived in, in the late 70's early 80's. The council there sold houses off at a discount depending on your length of tenure. Thus some people paid just 50% of the market value of the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:33 AM

Funny, innit, that when Labour people buy houses or send their kids to public schools they're hypocrites, etc., yet no-one criticises Tories for doing the same things - or for exercising the same free choice when it comes to choosing the best STATE school for their kids (you can always move house or give the parish priest a sweetener...), or for CHOOSING whether or not they bypass the NHS queues they've done so much to create. One lot gets to "exercise free choice" with impunity yet the other lot are castigated for diving the same thing. They've "abandoned their principles." Well if you're so keen on their "principles," how come you don't follow them yourselves! The air is polluted yet we all have to breathe it. The fact that right-wingers jeer at lefties for wanting the same choices that they exercise show where the real hypocrisy lies - us and them - sauce for the goose, etc....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:34 AM

doing, not diving

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 06:53 AM

"Funny, innit, that when Labour people buy houses or send their kids to public schools they're hypocrites, etc., yet no-one criticises Tories for doing the same things "
Just going to say that
When you consider Tory Duck Palaces paid for out of Parliamentary expenses, claims for accommodation that didn't exist, offshore accounts and lobbying, hypocrisy (which is what it is) measures extremely small.
Labour proposes a system whereby all children are given an equal opportunity at getting an education; until we get that, it is understandable that anybody under the present system does their best for their children
We live under the system we live under
Jim Carroll