Your link suggests that the relevant college authorities have dealt with the verbal abuse, I imagine there is a good chance it will be left at that, but that is based on attitudes prevailing eons ago.
enfht - MemberThis thread is pointless without Comrade Ernesto's inspirational insight.
Aw shucks
[img] 
[/img]
Hard to see a way out of all this:
"Labour is facing an existential threat."
What a load of boll*cks. The real existential threat is if labour MPs try to impose a new leadership election without Corbyn on the ballot. It will be in flagrant breach of all democratic principles and against the wishes of the vast majority of the party membership. It's not the labour party that is facing an existential threat, but the careers of a bunch of self-serving career politicians.
Career politicians are all in for the money. 🙄
The MPs would argue they have a responsibility to the people who voted for them, not just to party members, both sides have a point which is why there is normally a compromise.
Hard to see a way out of all this:
The real existential threat is if labour MPs try to impose a new leadership election without Corbyn on the ballot. It will be in flagrant breach of all democratic principles and against the wishes of the vast majority of the party membership.
That's the problem isn't it. Corbyn can't resign or his 'supporters' will be posting dog **** through his door. The PLP can't get rid of him. Whatever Labour do crucifies them.
Whatever Labour do crucifies them.
Well there is the 3rd option of accepting the democratic decision of the party and working together to make the Corbyn leadership a success. Radical I accept but who knows where it might lead? If/when he fails (they all do eventually), they can elect a new leader with a the full support of the party. That's how it works.
Funny isn't it that the Labour party and Republicans find themselves in similar situations where the 'anti-establishment' candidate gains grass roots support and wins over pathetic bland alternatives and yet the party top brass know the leader is toxic and can't win them an election.
If Labour want to take down Corbyn then they really [b]all MPs[/b] in private need to get behind someone who stands for something, but is a moderate and isn't tainted by the Blair era. Then someone has to run as a stalking horse. Do that just after the council elections and they might have a chance.
yet the party top brass [s]know the leader is toxic[/s] want to repeat the mistakes of teh last election they lost and are terrified that they might [s]can't[/s] win them an election and they will be left in the cold
Have you seen anyone the fits the bill? I haven't. I haven't heard a single voice that is against Corbyn also propose alternative policies with any substance.If Labour want to take down Corbyn then they really all MPs in private need to get behind someone who stands for something, but is a moderate and isn't tainted by the Blair era. Then someone has to run as a stalking horse. Do that just after the council elections and they might have a chance.
They all sound like Sadiq Khan. They know they sit somewhere between Corbyn and the Tories, but can't quite work out where that is so all they can do is say which Tory policies they don't like and which Corbyn policies they don't like.
Have you seen anyone the fits the bill?
No but why should that matter, most people would struggle to name 3 Labour politicians out of their 200 odd. If they can't find a leader from the current lot then are they screwed as a party. Oh and Ed Milliband needs shooting for lack of succession planning.
terrified that they might win them an election and they will be left in the cold
Nail on the head. Tony Blair is on record as saying he wouldn't want a Corbyn-led labour party to win. Theirs is a scorched earth strategy, where if they don't get their own way they'll take everyone else down with them, so it's extremely ironic to hear them talk of existential threats. I find it amazing they haven't been thrown out yet.
Tony Blair is on record as saying he wouldn't want a Corbyn-led labour party to win.
As opposed to the Corbynites who have stated that they would rather lose the election to the Tories than move to the centre ground 😆
I think the phrase 'a plague on both their houses' might be the one you're looking for
Well there is the 3rd option of accepting the democratic decision of the party and working together to make the Corbyn leadership a success.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical given the opposition that Blair received as democratically elected leader from 'the left' in general, and Corbyn and his mates in particular?
@dragon, yes indeed. Really interesting the two different takes on anti-establishment, in fairness the Democrats also have their anti-establishmnet candidate.
@daz, no one on the Blairite side of the Labour party is remotely worried about Corbyn winning an election. He has ZERO chance. What they are worried about is him decimating the Labour vote to the point that they cannot recover by 2025. They are also worried about the (highly predicatble) Stalinist moves by Corbyn to crush discent and disagreement to his party line. Quite the irony.
My guess was that Corbyn would make it through to the Scottish elections in May and then get booted out. The SNP are going to take Corbyn to the cleaners, it's going to be men against boys. Maybe he won't make it that far as cracks over his long held anti-EU beliefs come to the fore ?
EDIT:
As opposed to the Corbynites who have stated that they would rather lose the election to the Tories than move to the centre ground
This. There where many senior. labour figures who pointed this out and many members who openly said "Yes we'd rather stay true to our principals and lose than move to the center and win"
So... the right wing of the Labour party don't want to do whatever it takes to win, as it means endorsing Corbyn, and the left wing of the party don't want to do whatever it takes to win as it means endorsing Blair
[img] 
[/img]
How bizarre that those two lying ****ers can be considered preferable to ... well ... anybody!!
And the worst of them isn't even in the picture!DrJ - MemberHow bizarre that those two lying **** can be considered preferable to ... well ... anybody!!
We should have a caption contest for that photo...I'll start...
Boris "Can you believe it, we keep getting away with it"... Cameron.." Oh I know..they're all such gullibble ****wits"....
edenvalleyboy - MemberWe should have a caption contest for that photo...I'll start...
Boris "Can you believe it, we keep getting away with it"... Cameron.." Oh I know..they're all such gullibble ****wits"....
Boris: "You want to deep throat my sausage Cameron?"
Cameron: "No, I want to clean Merkel's carpet and trim her bush garden ... "
How bizarre that those two lying **** can be considered preferable to ... well ... anybody!!
Labour could have elected a leader capable of winning. However in a comedy of errors they wanted to "broaden the debate"
Boris: "Can you imagine the scene, Corbyn and Diane Abbott, rutting"
Cameron: "And they called [u]me[/u] a pig f***er... 😆 "
Classy. The Tory shows his true colours.
Yeah that's the kind of disrespect for women I'd expect from Cameron, Johnson and their supporters
I wrote to my old college to express my disgust.
I also wrote to my old college to express my disgust, but they just washed their hands of the affair, saying "we at North West Glasgow Secretarial School have got nothing to do with the issue". Sad. Low energy.
kimbers - Member
Yeah that's the kind of disrespect for women I'd expect from Cameron, Johnson and their supporters
Merkel is a woman? You don't say ... 😆
Diane Abbott ... that woman has disgusting personality. Pui! 😮
This. There where many senior. labour figures who pointed this out and many members who openly said "Yes we'd rather stay true to our principals and lose than move to the center and win"
A perfect demonstration of why you and others completely fail to understand why anyone would support someone like Corbyn. I've said many times here that politics is not a sport. Or at least it shouldn't be. Winning power by any means necessary has no attraction unless you're the sort of person who craves it. Yes, in most cases, the best way of effecting change is to have power, but we've had 40 years where the main change that's occurred is an increase in wealth disparity, a reduction in social mobility, and the reduction and erosion of incomes, protections, and benefits for the vast majority of people. It's not about wanting to lose, but a victory where nothing changes represents just as much, and perhaps more, of a defeat.
That's quite a quandary to be in, sticking to ideals that make the party unelectable.
No one can be sure of electibility though - no point in weathervaning all over the place only to find you were unelectable anyway - that's where Labour were last election. So scared of upsetting anyone that they didn't say anything at all.
To be honest, they still seem to be at it - see Seema Malhotra on Sunday's TV. Hard to work out whether she had no idea, or just didn't want to say what the idea was.
I don't think the ideals make the party unelectable at all.
Most people aren't rich, most people would benefit from a Labour party looking after them. The problem is that most people have been convinced otherwise by Tories. If Labour could change this message then I firmly believe there is no intrinsic barrier to their election with Corbyn in charge.
The big question is whether or not they can pull it off.
That's quite a quandary to be in, sticking to ideals that make the party unelectable.
I guess it's a question of personal integrity - something that is signally lacking in politicians in general.
An alternative might be to say that you regretfully accept the necessity to have a leader who is a slimy mendacious crook, as long as he's less of a slimy mendacious crook than the other lot, on the assumption that he will cut fewer benefits to disabled people and give fewer tax giveaways to the posh boys. What a choice 🙁
signally lacking
Grrrr........
Winds me up almost as much as pacifically speaking. If we are to use clever phrases, let's make them right!
Agree with your point though - we ask for integrity and then when we get it, we don't like it.
I think people confuse integrity and pig headedness. What is the point of continuing with a policy that is a known failure? Integrity is saying 'hey, it didn't work out as planned lets try something different'. The alternative is you stick to the original plan as the country goes down the hill, just because you believe in it religiously.
Mogrips people obviously aren't convinced Labour are best for them at present and they have three problems to overcome (1) national security, (2) aspiration and (3) credibility around the economy. People will accept a little decrease in the NHS performance for feeling secure and economically stable.
signally lacking
Grrrr........Winds me up almost as much as pacifically speaking. If we are to use clever phrases, let's make them right!
Eh?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signally
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/signally
http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/signally
Most people aren't rich, most people would benefit from a Labour party looking after them. The problem is that most people have been convinced otherwise by Tories.
Its this sneering disdain for the electorate from the Left that ultimately leads to them repeatedly losing though.
As long they continue to sit in their ivory chairs, convinced so much of their own righteousness and moral superiority that despite years of selling the same old claptrap, they still believe that if the people could only [i]hear[/i] what they had to say they would undoubtedly come flocking to the cause, they're never going to win.
Blair was a pragmatist, he realised that you had to meet the electorate in the middle, you have to [b]listen[/b] as well as preach.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/singularly
Although I'll concede that signally could work in your sentence, meaning that I've learned a new word (and now feel pwned).
Its this sneering disdain for the electorate from the Left that ultimately leads to them repeatedly losing though.
I don't have much respect for the amount of thought most of the electorate seem to have put in, no, you're right. It's not a question of being morally superior though - it's frustration with people's unwillingness to engage with the process properly.
I'd love to be proven wrong though. I'm happy to listen.
...but we've had 40 years where the main change that's occurred is:
[b]an increase in wealth disparity [/b]- only partially true and largely at the beginning of the period. False for recent history
[b]a reduction in social mobility [/b]- false (but plenty of excuses)
[b]and the reduction and erosion of incomes [/b]- false, on average up 2-3% pa since the 50s
[b]protections, and benefits for the vast majority of people[/b] - false and one reason why old jezza should be more openly pro EU
Hmm, how far from reality does the narrative have to stretch?
That post needs more data, THM.
Why -it gets consistently ignored? The truth is there for all to see, they just have to be bothered to dig it out?
But going back to Jezza and co, poor old Jim had a bit of a roasting on Today didn't he? All rather sad and incompetent....
The truth is there for all to see, they just have to be bothered to dig it out?
Your post feels like it's heavily interpreting statistics. Saying 'the truth is there for all to see' makes me think you're biased.
For example. If I were to say 'things are bad' and you were to say 'no, things are better than they've ever been' - we can both be correct.
We might all have more disposable income (say) but if those at the top have 200% more disposable and those at the bottom only 5% more disposable, is that still good? Not in my book - but then you would still have been correct to say that 'things are better'. I'd counter that things should actually be better still, and the fact they're not means that we've failed not succeeded.
If you get my drift.
Your post feels like it's heavily interpreting statistics
it is - my job depends on it 😉
Interpreting them to justify your already-held position?
No - I wouldn't get paid if I did that.
(It also helps not to be a slave to a particular political party as there isn't the need to make things up!)
RE you point, our tax system has become more progressive too - another fact at odds with the popular narrative. Funny old world, people will start making things up abut Europe next!
Income tax or overall taxation?
