Thursday 3rd December 2015

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:07 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Save Your Sanctimony and Threats of Deselection - Your Certainty Stinks

"I received hundred of emails. Many from thoughtful constituents with well thought out kind intelligent words. I thank each and everyone. To those who lectured me by email about "our party" and the values it holds, just FYI I have the membership lists and most of you aren't on it. I suggest you might not want to directly copy and paste in future. Also another tip from some of the pressure group emails: I have the electoral register, if you can't be bothered to register to take part in our democracy I suggest leaning on me with your wise words about my hard-earned democratic position looks a bit silly. Half of one of the batches of framed emails I received speaking of "our party" are not just not members of our party, but they are not members of the electorate either. Own goal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-ph ... 05908.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well said, it happens over and over - make believe people not giving a damn about the Labour party, the country or people livng in it.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:09 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993447
Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham has called for a code of conduct to prevent bullying and intimidation of MPs.

He said social media was "in danger of poisoning our politics" and Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had to take a "firm line" on it.

Mr Burnham, who voted against air strikes in Syria, said he was concerned about abuse and threats directed at colleagues who voted for action.
I seem to find myself agreeing with Andy Burnham again. I'm wary of media bias, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I assume the statement quoted in the article from Stop the War is accurate and as such I have to say I find it overly aggressive and just a little bit unpleasant:

But Campaign group Stop the War, which until recently was chaired by Mr Corbyn, said: "Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who apparently do not like being lobbied.

"If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they should really not be voting for bombing other people - those who wish to be alone with their consciences would do better to consider a life of religious contemplation.

"Stop the War will continue to hold to democratic account all those MPs who vote for war."
There is a fine line between "lobbying" and extortion and when threats are issued, such as deselection, for non-compliance with demands that definitely steps over the line into extortion. Corbyn can't distance himself from this organisation so I would respectfully suggest if they want to see him successful as the leader of the Labour party, they stop with the unnecessary hostility towards Labour's MPs and focus on the party and government that are primarily responsible for bringing about current bombing in Syria. It's about priorities and I can't get on board with anyone or any group that puts more energy into criticising the Labour party than it does into criticising the far worse Tory party.

Stop The War are probably the most odious of these leftist groups, Dianne Abbott was cheerfully addressing them yesterday. Left Unity are kicking around as well.

There is an alleged link between the organiser of Creasy's demo and Corbyn, they meet occasionally as part of CND. There is an alleged ( very dubious source, so most likely bollocks) plan to deselect Creasy already being worked on (not related to Syria).

So fundamentally these groups need dealing with, banning them from Labour activities and ensuring they go on the list of organisations you can't be a member of would be a start ( CND excepted, one assumes they will keep their house in order).

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:22 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Save Your Sanctimony and Threats of Deselection - Your Certainty Stinks

"I received hundred of emails. Many from thoughtful constituents with well thought out kind intelligent words. I thank each and everyone. To those who lectured me by email about "our party" and the values it holds, just FYI I have the membership lists and most of you aren't on it. I suggest you might not want to directly copy and paste in future. Also another tip from some of the pressure group emails: I have the electoral register, if you can't be bothered to register to take part in our democracy I suggest leaning on me with your wise words about my hard-earned democratic position looks a bit silly. Half of one of the batches of framed emails I received speaking of "our party" are not just not members of our party, but they are not members of the electorate either. Own goal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-ph ... 05908.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well said, it happens over and over - make believe people not giving a damn about the Labour party, the country or people livng in it.

Thanks for that. A fascinating article. Kind of reminds me of the sense of unreality I felt when CIF was taken over by the cybernats during the Scottish referendum. It was only when I had a brief exchange with an interesting lady from Scotland, who was weighing up which way to vote, that it dawned on me how much more of a real person she seemed than so many of the aggressive, self-righteous comments I had previously read. Were some of the other comments trolls or stirrers? Or maybe aggressive "I'm right, you're wrong" types are just more drawn to commenting btl? I'm still not sure, but I've become more wary of motive in btl comments. Trolling is one thing, but what happens when the trolls outnumber the real voices.....?

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:23 pm

Hilary Benn: Shadow Foreign Secretary says Labour won't back air strikes on Syria

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 34651.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: ScreenShot01180.jpg (72.04 KiB) Viewed 7104 times

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:33 pm

Well, well, well.

So, off our chaps in the RAF go, and within hours they've "dealt a blow" to ISIS by bombing oil fields that somehow got missed by a dozen or so other airborne forces during more than a year of airstrikes. Now, I love the RAF as everyone here knows, what with Dad and Daughter and all; but really? Have our planes done something hundreds of others couldn't? Really?

I have a question - if w are that good, why s OGRPPFGTCC now telling us that we've got another 3 years of this?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:34 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Willow904 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993447
Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham has called for a code of conduct to prevent bullying and intimidation of MPs.

He said social media was "in danger of poisoning our politics" and Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had to take a "firm line" on it.

Mr Burnham, who voted against air strikes in Syria, said he was concerned about abuse and threats directed at colleagues who voted for action.
I seem to find myself agreeing with Andy Burnham again. I'm wary of media bias, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I assume the statement quoted in the article from Stop the War is accurate and as such I have to say I find it overly aggressive and just a little bit unpleasant:

But Campaign group Stop the War, which until recently was chaired by Mr Corbyn, said: "Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who apparently do not like being lobbied.

"If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they should really not be voting for bombing other people - those who wish to be alone with their consciences would do better to consider a life of religious contemplation.

"Stop the War will continue to hold to democratic account all those MPs who vote for war."
There is a fine line between "lobbying" and extortion and when threats are issued, such as deselection, for non-compliance with demands that definitely steps over the line into extortion. Corbyn can't distance himself from this organisation so I would respectfully suggest if they want to see him successful as the leader of the Labour party, they stop with the unnecessary hostility towards Labour's MPs and focus on the party and government that are primarily responsible for bringing about current bombing in Syria. It's about priorities and I can't get on board with anyone or any group that puts more energy into criticising the Labour party than it does into criticising the far worse Tory party.
Stop The War are probably the most odious of these leftist groups, Dianne Abbott was cheerfully addressing them yesterday. Left Unity are kicking around as well.

There is an alleged link between the organiser of Creasy's demo and Corbyn, they meet occasionally as part of CND. There is an alleged ( very dubious source, so most likely bollocks) plan to deselect Creasy already being worked on (not related to Syria).

So fundamentally these groups need dealing with, banning them from Labour activities and ensuring they go on the list of organisations you can't be a member of would be a start ( CND excepted, one assumes they will keep their house in order).

Odious leftist groups, dubious sources you've posted nonetheless and fundamentally banning groups from Labour and a list forbidding membership if associated with Labour - I've read your ideas and disagree with you. Calling for banning members Labour party membership because of some other affiliation not already against Labour party rules is duly noted. You got a list? The Odious Leftist Group Banishment from Labour Party List? Yikes. The Tory party, their membership and party leaders are our problem, not leftwing Labour party members

I like many left wing groups and they do good work that doesn't get in the way of the Labour party membership. Please don't believe everything right-wing media spends billions of pounds telling you in one way or another every day. I'm not patronising you - I have to remind myself daily to do the same. Billions of pounds don't get spent daily for nothing.

edited to cross out what isn't helpful or constructive - please accept my apology, sincerely, I'm sorry.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:34 pm

The 'warmongers' came from that group who last month were proposing joining Labour.

@LeftUnity is original source of the tweet, as shown here:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:37 pm

ephemerid wrote:Well, well, well.

So, off our chaps in the RAF go, and within hours they've "dealt a blow" to ISIS by bombing oil fields that somehow got missed by a dozen or so other airborne forces during more than a year of airstrikes. Now, I love the RAF as everyone here knows, what with Dad and Daughter and all; but really? Have our planes done something hundreds of others couldn't? Really?

I have a question - if w are that good, why s OGRPPFGTCC now telling us that we've got another 3 years of this?

After the three years, the time of electioneering! Declare peace three years from now, spend the last years Tory campaigning. Oh, my god. I hate knowing exactly what's going on in Dave mind and political party.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:42 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 58656.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 66 Labour MPs were 'named and shamed' by Left Unity, a separate anti-austerity political party which has recently considered joining forces with Labour since Mr Corbyn was elected Labour leader.

Minutes after the vote was announced the group tweeted out the 66 "Labour warmongers" along with the banner: "Deselect them now". They repeated their message on Thursday morning

I've discovered that Left Unity was the origin of the list Ohsocynical posted earlier. This was what I was trying to establish. There is bias and agenda at work here. I worry at how this type of propaganda is nibbling away at the foundations of the Labour party and shaping the thoughts of voters. There is a vast difference between genuine, emotional responses of ordinary people and the very carefully worded publications of such groups. What concerns me is that as well as such material fostering dislike of one part of the party among party members, as is no doubt intended, it ultimately comes at the cost of putting the wider electorate off of Labour more generally. Instead of remembering Corbyn's speeches and that most of Labour voted against, people will strongly associate Labour with these airstikes if they continue to be bombarded with these kind of hostile messages. This helps the Tories. This is what I don't like.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:43 pm

pk1 wrote:The 'warmongers' came from that group who last month were proposing joining Labour.

@LeftUnity is original source of the tweet, as shown here:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does LeftUnity have a list of Tory MPs for de-selection?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:46 pm

citizenJA wrote:
pk1 wrote:The 'warmongers' came from that group who last month were proposing joining Labour.

@LeftUnity is original source of the tweet, as shown here:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does LeftUnity have a list of Tory MPs for de-selection?

Of course not, they would have to win an actual election. There is bugger all chance of that.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:47 pm

Willow904 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
CVSSPpDW4AAz_oy.jpg

See what I mean when I complain about women MPs growing balls. What the f**k are their names doing on there?
Can I ask who is posting this? It's an aggressive attack on the Labour party, which essentially aids the Tories. I have to suspect the motives of anyone who so determinedly undermines the damage limitation Corbyn chose to undergo by offering a free vote. Whoever posted this is clearly no friend of Labour, or even Corbyn, and they are certainly no friend of mine.

Trying to persuade or influence before a vote which could potentially be stopped is one thing, but now it's happened, such attacks on Labour MPs can only come from people who would be happy to see the party split and no longer offer a genuine possibility of ousting the Tories from power.

And the Party was split the moment Corbyn got the leadership. Within days there were backroom mutterings from the whatever you call thems.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:52 pm

It seems to me that there is a lot of unpleasantness going on at the moment - insults, bullying, all the rest.
It is sad to see it happening on the left - and not for the first time.

Lest we forget - many more Labour MPs voted against airstrikes in Syria than voted for them, about three to one.

And let's also not forget the three hundred plus Tories and Tory supporters who are the real villains here.

Cameron was telling us before the vote all manner of stuff he was unable to substantiate, including his theory that we'd be in this for 6 months.
Overnight that has become 3 years.

I am angry about this. I am angry that we are now going to be involved in a war to a greater degree than we were before.
I am angry with Cameron, and angry with those who have used this appalling things for their own political positioning.

I am glad I don't belong to any party now - it may be some time before I can support one.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:53 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:George Eaton has tweeted a LibDem "source" saying that Labour will win in Oldham - and maybe more comfortably "than expected" (whatever that means)

Hope this is right, we could all do with some good news........
I think the bookies are excellent guides to by-elections, as they are localised and trends can be spotted by the punters. UKIPs odds have been lengthening, Labour's shortening.

1-2K majority was suggested by somebody yesterday (can't remember who).

Bookies base their odds on the judgement of those placing bets - people putting their money on whatever wins them more - is that correct or am I wrong? I want to know.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:57 pm

I don't care who posted what.

I'm not against military action when the circumstances call for it but I don't like to see our lovely young men come home in coffins because of a politicians vanity.

Every single child and innocent bystander's death as far as I'm concerned, can be laid at the feet of those who voted for bombing.

This was a power play pure and simple and that's what makes it unforgivable in my book.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 2:59 pm

citizenJA wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:George Eaton has tweeted a LibDem "source" saying that Labour will win in Oldham - and maybe more comfortably "than expected" (whatever that means)

Hope this is right, we could all do with some good news........
I think the bookies are excellent guides to by-elections, as they are localised and trends can be spotted by the punters. UKIPs odds have been lengthening, Labour's shortening.

1-2K majority was suggested by somebody yesterday (can't remember who).
Bookies base their odds on the judgement of those placing bets - people putting their money on whatever wins them more - is that correct or am I wrong? I want to know.

Pretty much. Bookies have their specialists that establish the baseline odds which adjust in line with the money placed.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:00 pm

TobyLatimer wrote:Hilary Benn: Shadow Foreign Secretary says Labour won't back air strikes on Syria

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 34651.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScreenShot01180.jpg

Precisely!!!!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:01 pm

ephemerid wrote:It seems to me that there is a lot of unpleasantness going on at the moment - insults, bullying, all the rest.
It is sad to see it happening on the left - and not for the first time.

Lest we forget - many more Labour MPs voted against airstrikes in Syria than voted for them, about three to one.

And let's also not forget the three hundred plus Tories and Tory supporters who are the real villains here.

Cameron was telling us before the vote all manner of stuff he was unable to substantiate, including his theory that we'd be in this for 6 months.
Overnight that has become 3 years.

I am angry about this. I am angry that we are now going to be involved in a war to a greater degree than we were before.
I am angry with Cameron, and angry with those who have used this appalling things for their own political positioning.

I am glad I don't belong to any party now - it may be some time before I can support one.

(my bold)

Great wisdom in what you're writing - political party membership or affiliation can override individual good judgement, become too fervent and/or polarised. Letting go is liberating, allowing greater clarity, opening up the conversation. Just some thoughts I'm sharing, thank you all for your patience with me.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:09 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Willow904 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993447
Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham has called for a code of conduct to prevent bullying and intimidation of MPs.

He said social media was "in danger of poisoning our politics" and Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had to take a "firm line" on it.

Mr Burnham, who voted against air strikes in Syria, said he was concerned about abuse and threats directed at colleagues who voted for action.
I seem to find myself agreeing with Andy Burnham again. I'm wary of media bias, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I assume the statement quoted in the article from Stop the War is accurate and as such I have to say I find it overly aggressive and just a little bit unpleasant:

But Campaign group Stop the War, which until recently was chaired by Mr Corbyn, said: "Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who apparently do not like being lobbied.

"If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they should really not be voting for bombing other people - those who wish to be alone with their consciences would do better to consider a life of religious contemplation.

"Stop the War will continue to hold to democratic account all those MPs who vote for war."
There is a fine line between "lobbying" and extortion and when threats are issued, such as deselection, for non-compliance with demands that definitely steps over the line into extortion. Corbyn can't distance himself from this organisation so I would respectfully suggest if they want to see him successful as the leader of the Labour party, they stop with the unnecessary hostility towards Labour's MPs and focus on the party and government that are primarily responsible for bringing about current bombing in Syria. It's about priorities and I can't get on board with anyone or any group that puts more energy into criticising the Labour party than it does into criticising the far worse Tory party.
Stop The War are probably the most odious of these leftist groups, Dianne Abbott was cheerfully addressing them yesterday. Left Unity are kicking around as well.

There is an alleged link between the organiser of Creasy's demo and Corbyn, they meet occasionally as part of CND. There is an alleged ( very dubious source, so most likely bollocks) plan to deselect Creasy already being worked on (not related to Syria).

So fundamentally these groups need dealing with, banning them from Labour activities and ensuring they go on the list of organisations you can't be a member of would be a start ( CND excepted, one assumes they will keep their house in order).

Are you suggesting that Labour party proscribes organisations so members may join pressure groups or campaigns ? Because of the kind of behaviour that now seems to be a norm right across the political spectrum. I din't like bad behaviour any more than you, and in fact have had to deal with some appalling stuff, mostly from UKIP. They do a nice line in trying to recruit very decent but vulnerable people. Much worse than any of the examples we've seen this week.

It happens everywhere, you should see the ugly and blatant racism with violent threats included that my local rag attracts and will not do anything about. And the articles specifically written to do that. Vile beyond words. It has changed dialogue here, it is like an infestation. But theres a tendency that says it is okay to say what you want and to hold any opinion you want and disseminhte it by spoken or written word anywhere you want, because it is freedom of speech, and heaven forbid that anyone would try and shut them up because of 'immigrants' most of whom are third generation and British to the core.

Do you think the tories also get similar stuff to that received by Creasey or not? Because I am pretty sure they get more of it and worse, and things like the list posted today are pretty mild.

That is not condoning it, it is just saying it is a fact of life. It isn't exclusively party political either. My guess is that the tories pay interns or whoever to deal with their hate mail, and it is like water off a ducks back to them, they are used to being hated, and will only use it if it is politically expedient. Do you think IDS doesn't get hate mail, death threats and all sorts of other unpleasantness? If you tried to eradicate this thinking in the short term it would be disastrous. It is exactly the same as destroying universal welfare benefits, thebprinciple degrades when you meddle with it, which is why we so rarely ever do proscribe anything. I haven't heard any principled stand taken to curb anti conservative hate speech or words. But it violates exactly the same thing, no matter how bad their policies are.

You can't have things both ways. So, we have an increasingly angry and, on occasion, uncouth society. It comes with the way it has been degraded and the way haters in general have been nurtured and encouraged. Corbyn is the first politician I have come across who has even attempted to do something about the other side of that tendency ehich is the one that surrounds parliament and privilege. He has actually called for better standards of behaviour. For his pains he gets brayed at in the house and accused of harbouring undemocratic bullies!

You want to change it then you have to educate the population back into caring about everyone properly, undo the way that some of the concepts we hold dear have been eroded. It could take longer than dealing with ISIL, and won't happen until we get a better government and have restored a little balance, and some economic equality. You aren't even looking at the causes, its easier to attribute it to Corbyn. There are a lot of very disenfranchised people out there, and they are scared and angry, and words are all they have got. That is going to get worse before it gets better. Frankly, Osbourne, Cameron, IDS and the others have created an unstable untenable existence for a lot of people, and a lonely one too, for many. Why do you think that wouldn't manifest around a vote for something they see as being paid for with their suffering?

As for the organisations you have mentioned, like many others they are broad umbrellas. all sorts of different people march with them, are on their lists, read their newletters etc. Many of them also belong to 38 degrees and other such petition sites, and have strong interests in the single isdues of their choice. I have about a score of them myself, and read the ones that interest me, and have marched alongside people who support the ones you dislike. Ok people, most of them, though you do get the occasional loon.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:12 pm

The reviews are pouring in, as if this were a West End musical instead of the overture to a massacre. "Truly spellbinding", the Spectator gushes. "Fizzing with eloquence", gurgles the Times. "Electric", gloops the Guardian. The Telegraph's Dan Hodges, who can reliably be called upon to provide the worst possible opinion at any given time, goes further. "He did not look like the leader of the opposition," he writes. "He looked like the prime minister."

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hilary-benns-speech-930" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:21 pm

Lots of leftist groups are fronts for the SWP rump, who are non grata after their DIY rape trial. These are probably not that interested in Labour though to be fair. Momentum in so far as they overlap with the SWP at all have people who left in disgust.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:24 pm

Goodness, just looked a some of what has been posted while I was writing my own post! we are exposed to a barrage of propaganda on a daily basis! And one little facebook graphic is going to damage our politics overnight! Such things are for the kneejerk 2 second brain! Watson yesterday, Benn today, who will be flavour of the minute by tomorrow.

I am reminded of Yahyahs early post today on karma and how it is misinterpreted. Solidify the idea that these people are our enemies and thats exactly what they'll become, but many of them actually yearn for a labour they can trust, that will put their world to right again.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:24 pm

Creasy is overrated and, so I'm told by good friend in her CLP, oversensitive to criticism. I don't mind her coming under pressure.

But if Pat Glass is under pressure, that is awful.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:31 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:Hilary Benn: Shadow Foreign Secretary says Labour won't back air strikes on Syria

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 34651.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScreenShot01180.jpg
Precisely!!!!

And 5 days later you had a UN resolution, signed by everybody. China and Russia had both ostensively stepped on board.

At which point quite a lot of things had changed. So one could conclude that as the facts had changed the view was revisited.

The idea that Benn has engineered this is really out there. If you want to pick a fight with Corbyn to enhance your leadership prospects this would be the last choice you would make.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:34 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Creasy is overrated and, so I'm told by good friend in her CLP, oversensitive to criticism. I don't mind her coming under pressure.

But if Pat Glass is under pressure, that is awful.

Really? Creasy, scourge of internet trolls is overrated and oversensitive.

I call that rubbish, and sexist rubbish at that, you might want to get a second opinion.

She isn't quite my cup of tea politically, but she is pretty impressive.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:39 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:Hilary Benn: Shadow Foreign Secretary says Labour won't back air strikes on Syria

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 34651.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScreenShot01180.jpg
Precisely!!!!
And 5 days later you had a UN resolution, signed by everybody. China and Russia had both ostensively stepped on board.

At which point quite a lot of things had changed. So one could conclude that as the facts had changed the view was revisited.

The idea that Benn has engineered this is really out there. If you want to pick a fight with Corbyn to enhance your leadership prospects this would be the last choice you would make.

And still Dave had no plan other than "lets throw some bombs, there might be some locals that cam help, not sure how many. We can work out the details later". I still don't see what about what Corbyn was saying is so wrong and abhorrent.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:39 pm

My friend knows her better than you.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:43 pm

But agree she is impressive v internet trolls.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Lots of leftist groups are fronts for the SWP rump, who are non grata after their DIY rape trial. These are probably not that interested in Labour though to be fair. Momentum in so far as they overlap with the SWP at all have people who left in disgust.

The SWP in spite of their name getting plastered on posters are mostly despised, mainly because they moan and never get anything done.

I'm going to bow out of this in a moment, on exactly the basis of Yahyahs post. But not before I ask this question. What do you think people who have borne the unremitting weight of cuts since 2008 and all the associated vilification they have had to endure in the press and from the public, with the added disappointment of the failure of Labour to adequately represent them and protect them, actually feel when half the party votes with the government for what will be a very expensive war? The terror they face isn't from outside, it is from their own politicians. So if you are saying it is unforgivable for a tiny portion of that kind of unrelenting pressure to come down on Creasey or anyone else then why not an equal passion about them? At least Ed and Corbyn have borne their share of this stuff with dignity, and haven't expected to be unscathed. At this point in time we are really fortunate we haven't seen a lot lot worse.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:44 pm

Serious efforts going on now (on the BBC TV news) to downgrade the importance of oil as a source of income for Isil.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 3:55 pm

I suspect people are sick to the back teeth being told to stay polite, make nice.

See how far that's got us. See what it's got us.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:00 pm

I missed this...the what cup?

You can just imagine the No 10 staffer having posted it and thinking "Shit, I was thinking of the boss at the time!"

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:01 pm

PorFavor wrote:Serious efforts going on now (on the BBC TV news) to downgrade the importance of oil as a source of income for Isil.

I can feel a serious streak of cynicism about this whole venture bubbling up, PF. At what point will this become what Dave always wanted it to be, another 'catch a dictator' event. And will there be any plan to replace him with anyone who can hold things together.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:05 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 58656.html

The 66 Labour MPs were 'named and shamed' by Left Unity, a separate anti-austerity political party which has recently considered joining forces with Labour since Mr Corbyn was elected Labour leader.

Minutes after the vote was announced the group tweeted out the 66 "Labour warmongers" along with the banner: "Deselect them now". They repeated their message on Thursday morning
I've discovered that Left Unity was the origin of the list Ohsocynical posted earlier. This was what I was trying to establish. There is bias and agenda at work here. I worry at how this type of propaganda is nibbling away at the foundations of the Labour party and shaping the thoughts of voters. There is a vast difference between genuine, emotional responses of ordinary people and the very carefully worded publications of such groups. What concerns me is that as well as such material fostering dislike of one part of the party among party members, as is no doubt intended, it ultimately comes at the cost of putting the wider electorate off of Labour more generally. Instead of remembering Corbyn's speeches and that most of Labour voted against, people will strongly associate Labour with these airstikes if they continue to be bombarded with these kind of hostile messages. This helps the Tories. This is what I don't like.

This is the phenomenon I was bemoaning before the General Election, how these disparate groups were diluting the message and handing the advantage to Cameron; the shouts of "Red Tories" from people who should have known better handed the victory to OGRFG - for example, the TUSC candidate in Gower polled just over 100 votes, the Tory candidate won by just 27 votes. As our American friends would say, do the math.

At the end of the day there is not a massive difference between Corbyn's policies and those espoused by Ed Miliband, perhaps a touch of emphasis in many areas (Ed hinted at rail renationalization, Jezza is more open about it). We had an opportunity in May to do something positive but the Left, as per bloody usual, shot itself in the foot; and it continues to do so, playing the same stupid, divisive games while people suffer. I have no time for the likes of Watson calling for unity, when he was one of the biggest stirrers pre-May; I have no time for Ken Loach, Left Unity, TUSC, Momentum ........ who aren't about building a strong Labour Party, but about carving out their own little fiefdoms - Ken Livingstone opined that being Mayor meant he was the big fish in the small pool, which suited him fine. But how many small pools can we afford while the sharks swim around in the big one, fiddling with pigs and pissing on the poor & vulnerable?

I know we are supposed to give Corbyn time, but I genuinely wonder how much control he really has, whether he is increasingly becoming the plaything of the mob that wants to destroy the Party.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:10 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Serious efforts going on now (on the BBC TV news) to downgrade the importance of oil as a source of income for Isil.
I can feel a serious streak of cynicism about this whole venture bubbling up, PF. At what point will this become what Dave always wanted it to be, another 'catch a dictator' event. And will there be any plan to replace him with anyone who can hold things together.

I bet the Saudi's are chuckling contentedly....

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:19 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:My friend knows her better than you.

Hence I am suggesting you might want a second opinion. Trust but check as they say.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:26 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:I know we are supposed to give Corbyn time, but I genuinely wonder how much control he really has, whether he is increasingly becoming the plaything of the mob that wants to destroy the Party.
I'm not sure about 'plaything'... I don't think he is influenced by these small groups or vocal individuals at all, but given how enthusiastically they have jumped to his support, he's getting tarred with the same brush. Not helped by the various conspiracy fantasies that he's their sinister puppetmaster, which is just what the rightwing press wants people to think.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that he was being influenced or worked like a puppet, more that he was being buffeted by the hot air generated by these groups to the extent that you have to wonder how much control he is now exerting; there have been calls for him to repudiate some of these activities which, to date, he has failed to do. The longer he lets them run unfettered the more people can wonder if he is either condoning them, or simply unable to do anything about them.

Just idle speculation on my part, obviously.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:36 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: Precisely!!!!
And 5 days later you had a UN resolution, signed by everybody. China and Russia had both ostensively stepped on board.

At which point quite a lot of things had changed. So one could conclude that as the facts had changed the view was revisited.

The idea that Benn has engineered this is really out there. If you want to pick a fight with Corbyn to enhance your leadership prospects this would be the last choice you would make.
I don't see what difference the UN Resolution makes. Just look at some of the things Benn was saying:

He said that the idea of British action against Isis in Syria should be put to one side until the country’s civil war had been brought to an end.

Mr Benn, speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, said that the Government should drop plans for a new House of Commons vote authorising military attacks in Syria to concentrate on peace talks and providing humanitarian support for refugees.

But Mr Benn said the “terrible events in Paris” meant it was “even more important that we bring the Syrian civil war to an end” before considering air strikes on Isis.

He outlined his thinking: “Why? Because the vacuum in which Isil/Daesh [Islamic State] in Syria thrives is a consequence of that civil war.

Mr Benn, who supports military intervention to protect civilians, said he did not think the Government was planning to come forward with a proposal to extend air strikes from Iraq into Syria.

But asked if he thought they should, Mr Benn said: “No.” He added: “They have to come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus for now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war.”

The shadow Foreign Secretary added: “The most useful contribution we can make is to support as a nation the peace talks that have started. That is the single most important thing we can do.”
Now let's look at some of what he said last night:

I believe that we have a moral and practical duty to extend the action that we are already taking in Iraq to Syria. I am also clear—and I say this to my colleagues—that the conditions set out in the emergency resolution passed at the Labour party conference in September have been met.

Daesh is plotting more attacks, so the question for each of us and for our national security is this: given that we know what it is doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in self-defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security? If we do not act, what message will that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much, including Iraq and our ally, France? France wants us to stand with it, and President Hollande, the leader of our sister Socialist party, has asked for our assistance and help. As we are undertaking airstrikes in Iraq, where Daesh’s hold has been reduced, and as we are doing everything but engaging in airstrikes in Syria, should we not play our full part?

It has been argued in the debate that airstrikes achieve nothing. Not so: the House should look at how Daesh’s forward march has been halted in Iraq. Its military capacity and freedom of movement have been put under pressure. Ask the Kurds about Sinjar and Kobane. Of course, airstrikes alone will not defeat Daesh, but they make a difference, because they give it a hard time, making it more difficult for it to expand its territory. I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties. However, unlike Daesh, none of us today acts with the intent to harm civilians. Rather, we act to protect civilians from Daesh, which targets innocent people.

I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we have heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now. It is also clear that many Members have wrestled and, who knows, in the time that is left may still be wrestling with their conscience about what is the right thing to do. But I say the threat is now and there are rarely, if ever, perfect circumstances in which to deploy military forces.

We are faced by fascists—not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this Chamber tonight and all the people we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy—the means by which we will make our decision tonight—in contempt.

What we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated.
Significant differences, not just in tone but in substance. Moreover, Benn did not choose to make a principled stand in terms of his own vote, but employed every rhetorical device at his disposal in persuading his colleagues to back military action against the Party position, knowing that the more people he persuaded, the more he would embarrass the party, when it would make no real difference to the outcome of the vote.

I find the suggestion that he's using this as a launchpad for a leadership not nearly as 'out there' as the completely unsubstantiated tinfoil-hattery that the leadership was passing information on wavering MPs to Momentum in order to threaten and abuse them.

But it isn't unsubstantiated tinfoil hattery is it. You just choose to dismiss the source as unreliable. It isn't just the cases in the article I linked, there is an interesting story about another MP being asked why he hadn't talked to his EC as requested by the leadership - in an email the MP wasn't sent but they were. There are other examples kicking around in other articles.

So in reality you have no evidence to disprove any of this, but you choose to ignore the multiple separate sources quoted on the basis they are anonymous ( which of course they would be). You can't quite pin down how those MPs were identified and targeted it just somehow happened. However with absolutely zero evidence you yourself invent a conspiracy story that this whole Labour car crash was somehow started - not by the Blairites - but by Hilary Benn.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:37 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:My friend knows her better than you.
Hence I am suggesting you might want a second opinion. Trust but check as they say.

I was a bit sharp there. sorry.

She's supposed to be explaining on Sunday.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:39 pm

This is the alternative view from a Corbyn aide who claims it is all out of their control. My suspicion is the aide is just out of the loop and their are multiple factions at play.

Warning it is also a massive anti Corbyn rant.

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/1 ... step-down/

Post by **refitman** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:43 pm

I just want to say that Left Unity really get on my tits.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:44 pm

Lies.

They are everywhere.

A woman who lied about being forcibly prevented from breastfeeding in a shop - a little scheme she cooked up with a friend with a view to making some money or something - has been accused of perverting the course of justice and has been found guilty. She has been sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years.

A man who has consistently lied - to his colleagues, peers, supporters, the public, and the mainstream media - for nearly 6 long years, on a variety of subjects, told a new set of porkies yesterday and made many statements he cannot prove. He is paid handsomely to do this, and we cannot do anything to stop him.

A very silly woman has done something even sillier, has faced the full majesty of the law, and has been punished for it. Rightly.

A very silly man has done many things which have and will cost lives, and he will never face a court for what he has done. Wrongly.

This is how the United Kingdom works.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 4:54 pm

Trains between Reading and Didcot resume after woman hit on line

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/ ... ef=mr&lp=1

This is my final post on the subject you'll be glad to know.
Here it is:

One or more. Every. Week. Multiply that poor soul's despair over the rest of the country.

Was it too much to ask Whatever They're Called, to recognise a democratic choice of leader and knuckle down to the job in hand?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 5:00 pm

I think it's sufficient to blame Hilary Benn for being a two-faced c***, he can't be held responsible for the vote.
If any of our representatives had still to make their minds up by that stage, deselection would be the least they deserve.
The whole day seemed to be about getting your face in the papers/broadcasts, not debating.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 5:00 pm

Benn has done a fairly significant u-turn thats not a theory it is a fact. I'll offer you a theory, his two speeches do not even have the same kind of written voice.

But that does not make a conspiracy any more than the scuttlebutt bits and pieces you mention. Neither provable or disprovable. Of course you could post some links.

The only people this kind of division benefits are the tories, so I will put another theory to you. Labour MPs were invited along to find out more about the situation in Syria at a Tory hosted event. Those expecting to vote with the government would have attended that. As the tories never do anything from the goodness of their hearts one can surmise they had a purpose in all this, and just maybe that rather different voice comes from that, along with any inter-party schmoozing that may have gone on. Which ee know happens as a matter of course.

But then you can say its just a conspiracy theory, and I can reply no, just the usual kind of accomodation that the tories regard as a norm. Because that is one hell of a different position to take within less than three weeks, even with all the ruckus about who would support what and how it would be done and by whom. And not to forget a certain amount of inherited charisma.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 5:02 pm

Never heard of this woman from the Socialist party who appeared on the BBC Daily Politics having a ding dong with John Mann. Clip here ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039zytv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: ScreenShot01182.jpg (104.95 KiB) Viewed 7359 times

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 5:10 pm

Nancy Taaffe?

Fine leftist background she has...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Taaffe#Nancy_Taaffe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit - given her involvement with Momentum you can see how the comparisons with Militant arise. Still doesn't mean they're anything to do with the official party itself despite having a few MPs on board.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 5:24 pm

seeingclearly wrote:Benn has done a fairly significant u-turn thats not a theory it is a fact. I'll offer you a theory, his two speeches do not even have the same kind of written voice.

But that does not make a conspiracy any more than the scuttlebutt bits and pieces you mention. Neither provable or disprovable. Of course you could post some links.

The only people this kind of division benefits are the tories, so I will put another theory to you. Labour MPs were invited along to find out more about the situation in Syria at a Tory hosted event. Those expecting to vote with the government would have attended that. As the tories never do anything from the goodness of their hearts one can surmise they had a purpose in all this, and just maybe that rather different voice comes from that, along with any inter-party schmoozing that may have gone on. Which ee know happens as a matter of course.

But then you can say its just a conspiracy theory, and I can reply no, just the usual kind of accomodation that the tories regard as a norm. Because that is one hell of a different position to take within less than three weeks, even with all the ruckus about who would support what and how it would be done and by whom. And not to forget a certain amount of inherited charisma.

Exactly. Thank you.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 5:25 pm

gilsey wrote:I think it's sufficient to blame Hilary Benn for being a two-faced c***, he can't be held responsible for the vote.
If any of our representatives had still to make their minds up by that stage, deselection would be the least they deserve.
The whole day seemed to be about getting your face in the papers/broadcasts, not debating.

Without a significant tory rebellion the vote was unwinnable anyway. It is not even relevant. Its about people feeling unrepresented. Isn't that what the deselection messages are saying? It doesn't make them right and even the way they are presented shows political naivety/ignorance and worse. But it offers an explanation. I see things like this voiced nearly everyday, lots of them, they are particularly bad when things like this happen. We saw it with Rachel Reeves.

It is no accident I think that the 12 billion that is said to represent welfare cuts is a match or the £12 billion said to be what the war will cost.

Everything about the way this stuff escalates and then dies down is exactly in key with peoples hopes that someone will stand up put their case to parliament and somehow make things better. And nobody can say that there has been any real success on this. The tories just sit and laugh in the face of all the decent things we used to be.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 03 Dec, 2015 5:39 pm

Afternoon.

Off topic....but my husband's just reading a computer magazine and there's a letter from someone claiming that they clicked on some picture links on The Mail website and he nearly got infected with some form of nasty malware.

As if the Mail isn't toxic enough already !