Friday 19th August 2016

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 4:53 pm

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 5h5 hours ago
For the next government to call a second referendum on the EU would be...
Acceptable: 34%
Unacceptable: 56%
(via YouGov)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:13 pm

Harry Leslie Smith ‏@Harryslaststand 3h3 hours ago

I find that those who think war not diplomacy is the answer have never seen their cities flattened by bombs & their friends dead. #NATO

Or been in an aircraft carrier that's been hit. Helping with the wounded below decks and his shipmate's blood slopping backwards and forwards over his feet in the ships swell. And when the ship was in danger of sinking having to close the watertight doors and always remember the screams of the wounded who were being left behind to drown.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:18 pm

Rowson

: CqOKAGOXgAArcWv.jpg (43.34 KiB) Viewed 11253 times

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:25 pm

@PF

Mike Smithson says YouGov are currently doing fieldwork for a poll of Labour members.
The results are due next week.
I presume they will ask people who they voted for last year, it'll be interesting to see how many have changed their view since, like those you've spoken to.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:32 pm

Mike Smithson 58mins ago@
YouGov: Lab voters split 58% to 20% that ''Britain should maintain its commitment to defend NATO allies''
JC out of step with party voters.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:39 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Corbyn or Owen, but appreciate their policies, even if there's little difference between them.
My main complaint with Labour leadership is that there's a perceived lack of talent available.
Everyone seems to be looking for a perfect candidate, while all possibilities get variously written off as too right, too left, too Jewish, not Jewish enough, too closely related to Ed balls etc.
I'd have been reasonably happy with most of the candidates last time round , in as far as they should all have theoretically been capable of leading (some of them even Labour:)).
Now not convinced anyone appealing to general membership will then have plp support do the Job successfully, and haven't seen anything from Smith or Corbyn, suggesting they acknowledge this as a problem or have a solution

I agree with you.

Brown got grief because he was "anointed" rather than elected; Milband got grief because he was "Red Ed" and not the correct brother (and, yes, there was an anti-semitic thing going on with the media); Corbyn's getting grief, despite being elected by a massive majority, because he's Corbyn....

One category you missed, dear Mr.Goat, is the women. I got the impression from both Cooper and Kendall - and their supporters - that they were the right candidates for the job just because they were women.

I can't help feeling that if Smith wins, unless he ditches the Corbynesque policies he has announced so far, the PLP won't give him much support either - and he appears to me to be the sort of person who might cave in to them. I could, of course, be totally wrong about him, but he strikes me as not being totally committed to what are quite socialist ideas not dissimilar to Corbyn's.

Show has been so turned off by the whole performance he is not going to vote for either of them. He has yet to decide if he's going to stay a Labour member.

There is no "perfect" leader. This isn't 1997. I've been reading in quite a few places that it's not the PLP who's out of touch with the membership, it's the membership that's out of touch with the PLP and the vast majority of the electorate.
It seems to me, as it did last year when we had all this before, that if the membership want Corbyn they should get Corbyn; and if they do, the PLP must support him and those who can't or won't do that need to find another party.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:40 pm

yahyah wrote:Mike Smithson 58mins ago@
YouGov: Lab voters split 58% to 20% that ''Britain should maintain its commitment to defend NATO allies''
JC out of step with party voters.

Well, the commitment works (theoretically, at least) both ways. People will probably be having that in the forefront of their minds. Surely Jeremy Corbyn realises that?

Edited to correct an embarrassing and now glaring (to me) typo

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:46 pm

ephemerid wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Corbyn or Owen, but appreciate their policies, even if there's little difference between them.
My main complaint with Labour leadership is that there's a perceived lack of talent available.
Everyone seems to be looking for a perfect candidate, while all possibilities get variously written off as too right, too left, too Jewish, not Jewish enough, too closely related to Ed balls etc.
I'd have been reasonably happy with most of the candidates last time round , in as far as they should all have theoretically been capable of leading (some of them even Labour:)).
Now not convinced anyone appealing to general membership will then have plp support do the Job successfully, and haven't seen anything from Smith or Corbyn, suggesting they acknowledge this as a problem or have a solution
I agree with you.

Brown got grief because he was "anointed" rather than elected; Milband got grief because he was "Red Ed" and not the correct brother (and, yes, there was an anti-semitic thing going on with the media); Corbyn's getting grief, despite being elected by a massive majority, because he's Corbyn....

One category you missed, dear Mr.Goat, is the women. I got the impression from both Cooper and Kendall - and their supporters - that they were the right candidates for the job just because they were women.

I can't help feeling that if Smith wins, unless he ditches the Corbynesque policies he has announced so far, the PLP won't give him much support either - and he appears to me to be the sort of person who might cave in to them. I could, of course, be totally wrong about him, but he strikes me as not being totally committed to what are quite socialist ideas not dissimilar to Corbyn's.

Show has been so turned off by the whole performance he is not going to vote for either of them. He has yet to decide if he's going to stay a Labour member.

There is no "perfect" leader. This isn't 1997. I've been reading in quite a few places that it's not the PLP who's out of touch with the membership, it's the membership that's out of touch with the PLP and the vast majority of the electorate.
It seems to me, as it did last year when we had all this before, that if the membership want Corbyn they should get Corbyn; and if they do, the PLP must support him and those who can't or won't do that need to find another party.

Ephie. I posted a really good link on the Corbyn thread. Sent to me by a mutual friend. About three from the bottom
Waiting to see if Refitman okays it to post it here on the main board.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:50 pm

Deleted subject to the Tactical Withdrawal Act(No surrender exemption clause)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 5:51 pm

Populism v. Democracy
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opini ... ed-kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AC Grayling thinks if MPs uncritically accept the result of the EU referendum vote they aren't doing their job.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:00 pm

Hi everyone

Hope all is well

Just a couple of points after reading today.

Firstly, about one of of posters who courts controversy. I am currently not responding to any posts as there is no debating with someone who is so convinced they are right all the time. I also find their posts repetitive and dull. I am also of the opinion, based on previous behaviour here and at the Grauniad, that their presence here is intended to provoke - especially as we are in a sensitive period and things are easily inflamed. I think this particular poster gets satisfaction from that

I have also only seen very view posts suggesting a 'banning' - mainly from those who have had bad experiences and, I think, most have already taken the decision to stop posting whilst we still have an active presence. That is a real shame and I hope they return soon

One thing though is that we have some other posters railing against calls for 'banning' when there have been very few. This seems to be overplaying the situation somewhat when what I more often see is a suggestion that the poster is ignored.

If people want to engage and use them for supporting their arguments then fine by me, I would just say that in my view it doesn't help their case much

On NATO - I understand the importance of the organisation and how it has been a guarantor of security in the post-war period. As with all things though the changing face of Europe should lead to a review of where it can help security in the current world

The expansion of NATO into the East of Europe was always likely to lead to some trouble with Russia and so it has proved - the hawkish comments of some of the leaders have not helped either.

There is also a question of the long-term commitment of the US and how the EU is involved in security and defence - at the moment the EU is criticised whenever it tries to get into this area

I find it a similar question to Trident - how does NATO help our security in the future is the question to answer, not how it has helped since WWII

I think this all has to be decided and discussed but as with all these type of questions there is a kneejerk response on the side of the status quo because any debate is considered 'weakness' or 'cowardice' - this is at the same time as we have seen a massive reduction in our general military capability

I find the following quote from Michael Fallon much more chilling that anything I have heard from Corbyn

NATO's mutual defence guarantee is a commitment that comes without any "conditions or caveats," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said last month.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:01 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 5h5 hours ago
For the next government to call a second referendum on the EU would be...
Acceptable: 34%
Unacceptable: 56%
(via YouGov)

How much of that is due to not wanting to suffer - and I mean suffer - all that bollocks all over again. I don't want second referendum. I want a party/coalition to run on an 'we'll overturn the result' ticket and get elected on it.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:05 pm

yahyah wrote:Populism v. Democracy
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opini ... ed-kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AC Grayling thinks if MPs uncritically accept the result of the EU referendum vote they aren't doing their job.

To be honest yahyah the opinion of someone like Grayling is largely irrelevant here

The issue we have is that the referendum was a bad idea as it was defined by the Cameron Government and once Pandora's Box has been opened then closing will be next to impossible

If MPs want to vote contrary to the result of the referendum then let them do so when the time comes......do you really see that happening? Do you think Stephen Kinnock, for example, would vote against the views of his constituents and then still expect to hold his seat?

The other issue we have is that the effects of Brexit have not yet become apparent and the expected catastrophe has not appeared. This, anecdotally, has strengthened the resolve of those I know who voted Brexit as it proves the lie, in their minds, to Project Fear

I am still absolutely convinced the problems will arise but will it be too late then? If the situation is maintained until the end of the year then I think May will be under immense pressure both internally and externally to do something

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:11 pm

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will seek to address the grievances of the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign, as he fights to retain the leadership of his party, his office has confirmed.

When asked his position on the triple lock guarantee on the state pension, Mr Corbyn said he would “obviously want to keep that”.
He went on: “I would also want to deal with the issue of the women who have been short-changed by the increase in retirement age [and] ensure that they are given proper transitional payments, otherwise known as the Waspi women.”

http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/08/18/pen ... ticle.html

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:12 pm

So you are the arbiter of what is relevant ?

I'll put you back on the blocked list, how silly of me to take you off it.

People have opinions, don't patronise them because they aren't you.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:16 pm

Cllr John Edwards ‏@JohnEdwards33 20h20 hours ago

I never want another leader who wages war with a million victims then moves on to make millions from his 'contacts' #LabourLeadership

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:21 pm

yahyah wrote:So you are the arbiter of what is relevant ?

I'll put you back on the blocked list, how silly of me to take you off it.

People have opinions, don't patronise them because they aren't you.

I am getting a bit tired of these overreactions to every post on here!

I could have worded it better but all I see about Brexit is what we could do and should do...when at the moment all we see is absolutely nothing is happening at all! Just wishful thinking!

If you want to put me on your blocked list yahyah then please do so...it is up to you but would just confirm to me that all the things that you accuse us 'Corbynists' of doing is actually being seen a bit closer to home.

I have found your posts more and more irritating over the last few weeks but haven't said anything and tried to be polite when dealing with you directly (although not with all others I accept).....you then respond with this!

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:27 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 5h5 hours ago
For the next government to call a second referendum on the EU would be...
Acceptable: 34%
Unacceptable: 56%
(via YouGov)
How much of that is due to not wanting to suffer - and I mean suffer - all that bollocks all over again. I don't want second referendum. I want a party/coalition to run on an 'we'll overturn the result' ticket and get elected on it.

I think that the results of the poll are possibly linked to what you say jonny.....I cannot imagine anything worse

The only way your proposal could help is if we had an election before Brexit is complete, which would theoretically mean - at a best guess, some time in 2019.

My assumption has always been that this is highly unlikely, especially as the Tories would not be on that ticket so would be setting themselves up to lose

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:35 pm

Thanks to Refitman for okaying this for the Daily thread.

No matter how hard you listen it’s impossible to hear the Blairite wing of Labour. They have shut up shop. The Progress website looks like it’s being maintained by interns, while there are no official Progress events being held until the day after the leadership election (Angela Eagle and a venture capitalist, since you ask).

During their attempt to stop Corbyn getting on the ballot paper, the right launched Saving Labour — there’s no information about where it gets its money, who its officers are, what it’s statues are. It organised a day of street stalls, issued three press releases and went quiet on 28 July.
It’s been superseded by “Labour Tomorrow” — a private company with a reported £250,000 war chest to fight Jeremy Corbyn once he wins. This money will be distributed only to “moderate centre left organisations”.

* Throughout this article I use the term Blairite and Blairism as a political category, not a term of abuse.

https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/the-s ... .op8e2xj21

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:36 pm

More details on the allegations against Nathan Gill. Relevant to those who are interested in Welsh politics, and Ukip's ongoing war. Don't read or respond if you don't like it.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... d-11774534" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:36 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
I find the following quote from Michael Fallon much more chilling that anything I have heard from Corbyn

NATO's mutual defence guarantee is a commitment that comes without any "conditions or caveats," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said last month.

I don't warm to that sentiment, either, but I'd like to hear the alternative suggestions (other than the veto power held by only 5(?) of the members). And I haven't heard them yet. Just clucks of disapproval.

Edited to remove a stray "Y"

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:39 pm

N.B. My comment was predicated on the premise of the poll, that the next government has the opportunity to overturn the decision. If it has already happened before then, there's really not much that can be said.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:51 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:N.B. My comment was predicated on the premise of the poll, that the next government has the opportunity to overturn the decision. If it has already happened before then, there's really not much that can be said.

I think the point I am trying, badly, to articulate is where this would come from and I have some practical issues

Would it be possible to ignore the referendum without a second one?
FPTP....would a Government with <50% have a mandate to make such a decision?
A one issue campaign seems like a really poor basis for a Government.....would the 'coalition' hold?
Turnout....would those 10% of voters that turned out to vote in the referendum come out again and vote for the 'Exit' parties?
Who would be part of it....?

On this last point, I can imagine the LD and some of the really outspoken Europhiles in constituencies that voted for Remain...I have a feeling many Labour MPs will not be part of this, mainly based on how their constituencies voted.

I am playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here but, as I said, I want to see all this happen but have severe reservations that any of the options are realistically achievable.....my assumptions though have been proved to be wrong before so if this all comes to pass then I will hold my hands up and also be very happy

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 6:57 pm

PorFavor wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
I find the following quote from Michael Fallon much more chilling that anything I have heard from Corbyn

NATO's mutual defence guarantee is a commitment that comes without any "conditions or caveats," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said last month.
I don't warm to that sentiment, either, but I'd like to hear the alternative suggestions (other than the veto power held by only 5(?) of the members). And I haven't heard them yet. Just clucks of disapproval.

Edited to remove a stray "Y"

I have no answers, and I doubt Corbyn has either, but his lack of immediate support for the status quo without question has started me thinking about whether there are opportunities as well as threats

The issue I have is that Fallon would therefore be prepared to go to war in support of Turkey 'without conditions or caveats'. Turkey is currently in a very precarious position - its human rights are verging on the appalling and it has been 'at war' with our allies, the Kurds, for years. There is no the indications of a new relationship with Russia, after their shooting down of a Russian jet not so long ago

We have seen historically how the 'without conditions or caveats' treaties have led to conflict by a cascade that has prevented all diplomatic avenues being explored. I know that banging on about diplomacy can be considered wishy washy but when the alternative is war then we should not go their lightly

Edited for typos

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 7:08 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:

I think this all has to be decided and discussed but as with all these type of questions there is a kneejerk response on the side of the status quo because any debate is considered 'weakness' or 'cowardice' - this is at the same time as we have seen a massive reduction in our general military capability

I find the following quote from Michael Fallon much more chilling that anything I have heard from Corbyn

NATO's mutual defence guarantee is a commitment that comes without any "conditions or caveats," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said last month.

(My edit)

Good post, howsilly - our military capability is becoming a bit of a joke, according to family who serve.

I really think that the UK, as a country, needs to think long and hard about its role as a military power. We have embroiled ourselves in all sorts of very long-drawn-out conflicts for no discernible result.
The accusations levelled at Blair that he was Dubya's "poodle" have resonance for me - most of the stuff we are involved in, from actual conflict to anti-insurgency work, is all about oil and money, really.

Now that we have left - well, will eventually at some point maybe probably or something - the EU, I wonder about our nice little deals with the countries involved and how long we'll get to keep them.

I am currently reading a novel called "Rain" by Barney Campbell. It's about a young army officer who serves in Afghanistan. Campbell was an officer in the Blues and Royals and did a tour there. It's interesting (if not terribly well-written) because of the way he describes the mindset of his main character and his men, how they feel about what they're doing.

In so many ways - from our education and social security, our armed forces and our royal family - I wish we were more like the Nordic countries in attitude. That will never happen as long as we have this jingoistic thing going on; plucky little Britain, punching above her weight, we-used-to-have-an-empire-you-know......we can't have a truly egalitarian country as long as we think like that.

When I say "we" I mean an awful lot of people.....

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 7:09 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Thanks to Refitman for okaying this for the Daily thread.

No matter how hard you listen it’s impossible to hear the Blairite wing of Labour. They have shut up shop. The Progress website looks like it’s being maintained by interns, while there are no official Progress events being held until the day after the leadership election (Angela Eagle and a venture capitalist, since you ask).

During their attempt to stop Corbyn getting on the ballot paper, the right launched Saving Labour — there’s no information about where it gets its money, who its officers are, what it’s statues are. It organised a day of street stalls, issued three press releases and went quiet on 28 July.
It’s been superseded by “Labour Tomorrow” — a private company with a reported £250,000 war chest to fight Jeremy Corbyn once he wins. This money will be distributed only to “moderate centre left organisations”.

* Throughout this article I use the term Blairite and Blairism as a political category, not a term of abuse.

https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/the-s ... .op8e2xj21

Thank you, Ohso - I saw this earlier, having picked t up from Twitter.

It's very much how I feel, actually. I know there are some who think Mason's lost it a bit, but I think this is excellent stuff.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 7:40 pm

Rain coming down hard

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 7:41 pm

Agree Mason hasn't lost it a bit.Nice clarification, did you see what he did there?Rhetorical question you either get it or don't/don't want to.Clever bloke,I will give him that.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 7:48 pm

citizenJA wrote:Rain coming down hard

Yes - they did say "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall" . . .

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 7:57 pm

I suppose we will see after the election result is announced

I, however, expect that the plotters, whoever they are, will not take this lying down and I think their only option is to try and do something along the lines of what Mason proposes

Of course there is quite a lot of hyperbole in there, and he is giving those involved too much credit as they have not demonstrated much competence thus far

The people we are led to believe are going to do all this are those that:

Contributed to the loss of the 2010 election (and it would have been worse with Brown's sheer bloody mindedness)
Managed to let Labour be blamed in total for the financial crisis
Managed to lose the 2010 leadership election to the 'wrong' brother
Managed to lose all Labour seats in Scotland
Contributed to the loss of the 2015 General Election through their constant undermining of the leader
Managed to lose the 2015 leadership election to a man who no-one thought stood a chance
Managed to lose the 2016 leadership and NEC election despite every attempt to undermine the democratic process (to be confirmed)

Seems like they are serial incompetents

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:02 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Populism v. Democracy
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opini ... ed-kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AC Grayling thinks if MPs uncritically accept the result of the EU referendum vote they aren't doing their job.
To be honest yahyah the opinion of someone like Grayling is largely irrelevant here

(cJA edit)

Grayling's academic work and professional veracity make his opinion on the UK's recent EU referendum valuable and relevant.

Parliament, the Nation, and Brexit
- A.C. Grayling
http://www.acgrayling.com/parliament-th ... and-brexit

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:07 pm

This is ludicrous. Angela Eagle a 'blairite'? Come on. Was anyone in media calling her that a year ago?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:12 pm

citizenJA wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Populism v. Democracy
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opini ... ed-kingdom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AC Grayling thinks if MPs uncritically accept the result of the EU referendum vote they aren't doing their job.
To be honest yahyah the opinion of someone like Grayling is largely irrelevant here
(cJA edit)

Grayling's academic work and professional veracity make his opinion on the UK's recent EU referendum valuable and relevant.
Parliament, the Nation, and Brexit
- A.C. Grayling
http://www.acgrayling.com/parliament-th ... and-brexit

Do you think that Grayling reaches the people who voted to Exit in Wolverhampton?

What is he actually proposing to do rather than some idea that MPs could go against the referendum result? We all know that is the case, if you don't mind me saying, it is pretty obvious

It is not the right to do it that is missing, it is the will!

I find his insights no better than many that have already been posted on here and discussed many many times. He is not going to change the opinion of anyone I know.....

If things were that important then where are the demonstrations and public outcry to overturn the result? It is hardly even mentioned on the news now

What we would need is the Tories to call a GE as jonny said and there is a mandate (I find this very unlikely) or a marked collapse of the economy that can be based on Brexit (no indications in the short term)

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:14 pm

citizenJA wrote:This is ludicrous. Angela Eagle a 'blairite'? Come on. Was anyone in media calling her that a year ago?

I am afraid everything is becoming polarised at the moment....

Blairite is less insulting than being called an anti-semitic misogynist though

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:21 pm

Nine local council contests this week, lots to catch up on so the review is going to be a bit delayed again. Again, should appear by early next week

ChrisDean · Post by **ChrisDean** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:31 pm

"Something" appears to be going on behind the scenes at FTN.

Checks kitchen drawer for tinfoil...

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:33 pm

Also think that Blairite is outdated now...the man has been out of frontline UK politics for almost 10 years now and he never really had an underlying robust political philosophy - basically he focused on triangulating and winning elections, to me he was also an opportunistic but that is my personal view. A bloody talented politician as well it has to be said, up until a point!

The ones that we are talking about have the same lack of clear principles and the whole aim for them is power, not rocking the boat and maintaining the status quo....conservatives in the literal sense of the word, not a radical bone in them....and not a patch on Blair as politicians......

I do not think Eagle is one of them either....she was just used, and rather disgracefully as well.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:34 pm

ChrisDean wrote:"Something" appears to be going on behind the scenes at FTN.

Checks kitchen drawer for tinfoil...

I have turned into a psychopathic zombie I think.......or so it seems

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 8:44 pm

Channel 4 News ‏@Channel4News 3m3 minutes ago

The Paralympics have announced major budget cuts 19 days before the start, putting some nations attendance at risk.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:01 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:This is ludicrous. Angela Eagle a 'blairite'? Come on. Was anyone in media calling her that a year ago?

I am afraid everything is becoming polarised at the moment....

Blairite is less insulting than being called an anti-semitic misogynist though

My comment was in response to something Paul Mason wrote about in the article linked up the thread. I have no idea what your response has to do with anything I've posted.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:11 pm

citizenJA wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:This is ludicrous. Angela Eagle a 'blairite'? Come on. Was anyone in media calling her that a year ago?

I am afraid everything is becoming polarised at the moment....

Blairite is less insulting than being called an anti-semitic misogynist though
My comment was in response to something Paul Mason wrote about in the article linked up the thread. I have no idea what your response has to do with anything I've posted.

You are insinuating that calling someone 'Blairite' is ridiculous....which in this case it is

I am just pointing out it is not more ridiculous than the insults thrown about elsewhere

I have just skimmed back and had a look at the article and I am not sure he actually calls Eagle a Blairite but rather that she was being used as a front by some of them....that may or not be true but this faux outrage at all pro-Corbyn blogs is becoming tiresome

Agree or disagree - that is fine but try not to overplay things

I think the term 'Blairite' is pretty meaningless as I have said before

Why is everything becoming black and white now and no-one is allowed to challenge anything....the minute you try to argue back then there is a tendency to respond in an insulting manner....I have not meant any of my posts this afternoon to be insulting and I did admit to wording something badly above which led to a rather personal attack from yahyah

You yourself came back with a rather barbed response

I have tried to be careful how I post but it seems that everyone is looking to be offended

If the gloves are off then okay....it would be a shame but I am not going to 'flounce' off anymore, I will stand my ground though

edited to change last sentence to make more sense

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:33 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
I am afraid everything is becoming polarised at the moment....

Blairite is less insulting than being called an anti-semitic misogynist though
My comment was in response to something Paul Mason wrote about in the article linked up the thread. I have no idea what your response has to do with anything I've posted.

You are insinuating that calling someone 'Blairite' is ridiculous....which in this case it is

I am just pointing out it is not more ridiculous than the insults thrown about elsewhere

I have just skimmed back and had a look at the article and I am not sure he actually calls Eagle a Blairite but rather that she was being used as a front by some of them....that may or not be true but this faux outrage at all pro-Corbyn blogs is becoming tiresome

Agree or disagree - that is fine but try not to overplay things

I think the term 'Blairite' is pretty meaningless as I have said before

Why is everything becoming black and white now and no-one is allowed to challenge anything....the minute you try to argue back then there is a tendency to respond in an insulting manner....I have not meant any of my posts this afternoon to be insulting and I did admit to wording something badly above which led to a rather personal attack from yahyah

You yourself came back with a rather barbed response

I have tried to be careful how I post but it seems that everyone is looking to be offended

If the gloves are off then okay....it would be a shame but I am not going to 'flounce' off anymore, I will stand my ground though

edited to change last sentence to make more sense

There's nothing 'barbed' or not nice about my responses to your posts.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:36 pm

citizenJA wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
citizenJA wrote: My comment was in response to something Paul Mason wrote about in the article linked up the thread. I have no idea what your response has to do with anything I've posted.

You are insinuating that calling someone 'Blairite' is ridiculous....which in this case it is

I am just pointing out it is not more ridiculous than the insults thrown about elsewhere

I have just skimmed back and had a look at the article and I am not sure he actually calls Eagle a Blairite but rather that she was being used as a front by some of them....that may or not be true but this faux outrage at all pro-Corbyn blogs is becoming tiresome

Agree or disagree - that is fine but try not to overplay things

I think the term 'Blairite' is pretty meaningless as I have said before

Why is everything becoming black and white now and no-one is allowed to challenge anything....the minute you try to argue back then there is a tendency to respond in an insulting manner....I have not meant any of my posts this afternoon to be insulting and I did admit to wording something badly above which led to a rather personal attack from yahyah

You yourself came back with a rather barbed response

I have tried to be careful how I post but it seems that everyone is looking to be offended

If the gloves are off then okay....it would be a shame but I am not going to 'flounce' off anymore, I will stand my ground though

edited to change last sentence to make more sense
There's nothing 'barbed' or not nice about my responses to your posts.

'I have no idea what your response has to do with anything I've posted'

That is not particularly polite.....and actually there was a link to what you posted

And I also dispute the faux outrage in your original post...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:36 pm

Have we had this? Apologies, if so -

Momentum drops pledge to nonviolence from code of ethics

Pro-Corbyn grassroots group drops word after several members argued they should have right to defend themselves if attacked (Guardian)

I quite sympathise with the rationale given (more detail in article). I'm against violence but, if push came to shove, I'm not a pacifist.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -of-ethics

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:45 pm

PorFavor wrote:Have we had this? Apologies, if so -
Momentum drops pledge to nonviolence from code of ethics

Pro-Corbyn grassroots group drops word after several members argued they should have right to defend themselves if attacked (Guardian)
I quite sympathise with the rationale given (more detail in article). I'm against violence but, if push came to shove, I'm not a pacifist.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -of-ethics

I'm just going to see if I can find the link on The Huffington Post, but there is a bit about Momentum. They are putting on some sort of parallel conference? Event? when the Labour party has theirs. The article states that many of those taking part are not Labour and would never vote Labour.

Can we really call it a grass roots Labour movement if that's the case? I was always under the impression it was a coalition of protest groups who were fed up trying to get government to get their finger out. Joining forces would give them a stronger voice?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:48 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:48 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Have we had this? Apologies, if so -
Momentum drops pledge to nonviolence from code of ethics

Pro-Corbyn grassroots group drops word after several members argued they should have right to defend themselves if attacked (Guardian)
I quite sympathise with the rationale given (more detail in article). I'm against violence but, if push came to shove, I'm not a pacifist.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -of-ethics
I'm just going to see if I can find the link on The Huffington Post, but there is a bit about Momentum. They are putting on some sort of parallel conference? Event? when the Labour party has theirs. The article states that many of those taking part are not Labour and would never vote Labour.

Can we really call it a grass roots Labour movement if that's the case? I was always under the impression it was a coalition of protest groups who were fed up trying to get government to get their finger out. Joining forces would give them a stronger voice?

Here it is. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/m ... 667a0768cb

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:49 pm

ohsocynical wrote: I'm just going to see if I can find the link on The Huffington Post, but there is a bit about Momentum. They are putting on some sort of parallel conference? Event? when the Labour party has theirs. The article states that many of those taking part are not Labour and would never vote Labour.

Can we really call it a grass roots Labour movement if that's the case? I was always under the impression it was a coalition of protest groups who were fed up trying to get government to get their finger out. Joining forces would give them a stronger voice?

There's this piece in the Guardian, if that's of any help -

Momentum event featuring Corbyn 'is not Labour conference rival'

Organisers say fringe event also featuring shadow chancellor John McDonnell will complement official party conference (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ence-rival

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 9:52 pm

BTW PF Wasn't arguing on what you commented on. I agree on protecting yourself.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 19 Aug, 2016 10:19 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: I'm just going to see if I can find the link on The Huffington Post, but there is a bit about Momentum. They are putting on some sort of parallel conference? Event? when the Labour party has theirs. The article states that many of those taking part are not Labour and would never vote Labour.

Can we really call it a grass roots Labour movement if that's the case? I was always under the impression it was a coalition of protest groups who were fed up trying to get government to get their finger out. Joining forces would give them a stronger voice?

There's this piece in the Guardian, if that's of any help -

Momentum event featuring Corbyn 'is not Labour conference rival'

Organisers say fringe event also featuring shadow chancellor John McDonnell will complement official party conference (Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ence-rival

I had read somewhere that Corbyn was quite happy they have anti Labour speakers. I don't think he minds if groups or people disagree with him. He seems fine with it.