Is anyone going to deny that there were timed resignations to cause maximum damage?
On a different issue seeing these hustings and debates I think its a shame the Tories didn't go through the same process. Who knows what May thinks about anything?
the claim that "any potential aggressor" bases their assessment on[s] a TV/newspaper interview ![/s] the fact that it was said
Fixed that.... you know... 🙄
What value would there have been in having the Tories put up two unsuitable candidates too? They nailed their jokers pretty quickly and saved everyone the bother.
CFH - he at least has some understanding - albeit he still has no clue about Scotland. He at least talks to and listens to folk outside of the bubble
If Alexander did not want to damage Corbyn why was her resignation on Twitter within an hour? Timed to be available for the news bulletins during the day?
I'm not sure talking at Union and Momentum meetings counts as getting out of the bubble. He's no better than the usual top MPs who are surrounded by people similar to their thinking.
To admit Corbyn has popular support is to admit they have wasted at least the last 13 years of their political career heading in the wrong direction
Hmmm....popular?
[url= https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/17/voting-intention-little-movement-conservatives-sti/ ]
[img] http://tinyurl.com/jjaujvb [/img][/url]
FWIW as I said before I think that the notion of Blairite, like its better known predecessor, rarely holds up to actual scrutiny. But an easy (some might say lazy) tag to apply.
Yeah, good point that. I'll ponder on that one, I've noticed a tendency in myself to fall back on it somewhat. Language defines all of this (and indeed, anything and everything else.) ta!
@thm hopefully they would have been asked some difficult questions, I suppose it can wait til PMQs -
How many Qs do the SNP get?
NB I fully support Corbyns pmq tactics. Starting slow like Diaz against McGregor.
Cody, tbc, my comment about lazy tags was a general one!!
Dragon - and lots of other meetings with individuals and groups over decades.
The thing is being up here in Scotland I have a different perspective to most of you. We see a new sort of politics being successful. One based on honest people who have principles and stick to them. Who say what they believe not what will play well with the tabloids, who will not pretend there are easy answers to complex questions ( see the stuff about bombing russia for example - Corbyns answer is the sort of answer that plays well with the electorate up here)
And I don't just mean the SNP - look to the (relative) success of Ruth Davidson for another example.
Now we have some politicians who do this we like it. Politicians who use the westminster mode don't get the votes. Those who answer truthfully and who seem principled do well. Political engagement is vastly up all over the spectrum.
Of course the fact that most "UK" wide papers ignore scotland helps - but the SNP face a constantly critical mainstream media but their use of alternative / modern media gets the message across.
One based on honest people who have principles and stick to them
Like SNP policy on NATO?
(whoops, that 'collective defence' stuff really does muck things up for the political left, doesn't it?)
The Hanbook of Honest Politics
😀 😀
Ninfan - that caused a lot of anguish that one. It was Salmond running scared of the tabloids that pushed the change thru against a lot of opposition and caused at lest one high profile resignation by doing so. I expect it to be reversed again. Salmond is more of an old school politician - he is not a part of the new scottish politics. Sturgeon and Black are more representative of the people I mean.
Is THM still answering my posts? I really can't see them you know THM. I wish I could remember who wrote the filtering script. Its a godsend.
[quote="teamhurtmore"]
teamhurtmore said something stupid.
[quote=tjagain ]Is THM still answering my posts? I really can't see them you know THM. I wish I could remember who wrote the filtering script. Its a godsend.
teamhurtmore »
teamhurtmore said something stupid.
No, he's ignoring you, something about signal to noise ratio.
Little things..... 😉
So Labour "should" follow Sturgeon....about turn....forget the 50p tax rate, bloody costly to ping the rich....cue, deputy leader candidate dissent!!
The new politics, tartan style!!!
Revisionist History Paper 2 in the making. To be released 1H17
Ah - its just his posts seem to crop up after mine a lot.
The equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU! LA LA LA LA".
Only far sadder as it's not coming from a six year old.
Still, if you'd rather ignore opinions that you don't agree with, that's your choice.
Is it just me, or is there an echo in this chamber?
[quote=tjagain ]Ah - its just his posts seem to crop up after mine a lot.
Just coincidence.
CFH - not at all. I block him because he is rather unpleasant, set out to deliberately make me lose my temper and go me got banned before for telling him what I thought of him. He is the only one I block. His posts never had any value anyway. I had better be very careful what I say about him as I am sure I am here on a very slender thread and he continually reported me before. Its nicer for me without him.
I don't block the rest of the right wingers. Ninfan is a much better troll and actually has some understanding of what he is talking about. ( and is good on land access stuff) Jamba is good for comedy value. Dragon does not cover all threads all the time, even you can be funny 😉
Fair enough. Still think it's wrong to block anyone, mind you. Easy enough to ignore them if you so choose!
Has Junky been saying anything recently, by the way? Haven't been reading any of his waffle. 😉
I ain't good at ignoring folk. My failing. this way is easier for me.
tjagain - Member
tjagain waffled inconclusively. Again.
Hey, this is pretty good, actually!
Fair enough. Still think it's wrong to block anyone, mind you. Easy enough to ignore them if you so choose!
Yes, very...
Has Junky been saying anything recently, by the way? Haven't been reading any of his waffle.
😀
Revisionism knows no bounds!
I am sure I am here on a very slender thread
At 260 pages this looks like a really bloated thread to me 🙂
*s****s at CFH*
If only you knew what misspelt gems you were missingHas Junky been saying anything recently, by the way? Haven't been reading any of his waffle
THM likes to pretend he ignores my posts almost as much as he likes to pretend about his varied day job and his employees
He seems to think not being patronised by his drivel is some sort of punishment
Long may it continue.
As he showed with your post emoticon he is still not capable of not being passive aggressive though even when "ignoring" me
Some of his playful spats [ mutual unrequited love is what I suspect there]with ernie are amusing and well matched though
Did anyone else hear something just then?
Pardon?
😀
See I told you he could not resist - these are the prophetic pearls you are missing.
Oh, good grief. Momentum had an interim code of ethics, which said “Momentum is wholly committed to working for progressive political change through methods which are inclusive, participatory and nonviolent”
They've decided to remove the word "nonviolent". So they're admitting they're okay with using violence to achieve political change.
It's the world's slowest car crash, really.
in the soundbite world thats pretty catchy to beat them with the full acccount is a lot more wordy and i can sort of see their point - though its still daft to have removed it
“I raised a point that if we stuck with the suggested wording, and our members were arrested for defending themselves on a protest, then we would have to consider expelling them from Momentum,” she said.“As people who are organising and protesting, we have to have a right to defend ourselves. I cited the fight against fascists in Cable Street, the right of self-defence during the miners’ strike, the suffragettes. Those struggles showed us that while the right might accuse the left of violence, we should defend the right to defend ourselves.”
She added: “This is an important point, particularly as we campaign for a public inquiry into Orgreave.”
The words “and non-violent” were subsequently removed following the intervention.
A Momentum spokesperson said: “Momentum is a non-violent organisation that believes in, and organises for, non-violent social and economic change. While some of our members are pacifists, others are not and argued that in certain circumstances, such as fighting fascism in world war two or struggling against apartheid, violence is legitimate.”
they have not suddenly decided they will get violent with everyone but that is undoubtedly how it will be spun
IMHO nice pamphlet campaigns rarely lead to the establishment giving in and direct action can be legitimate - were the suffragettes wrong?
Nah, that's rubbish. What do they mean "defending themselves on a protest"? That, and the comparison with the Battle of Cable Street just makes it worse, makes it sounds as if they're preparing for violence.
Every violent organisation in history has started by claiming they're just acting in self defence. Are they really so naive that they don't know that?
So they're admitting they're okay with using violence to achieve political change.
A Momentum spokesperson has said "Momentum is a nonviolent organisation that believes in, and organises for, nonviolent social and economic change. While some of our members are pacifists, others are not and argued that in certain circumstances, such as fighting fascism in world war two or struggling against apartheid, violence is legitimate."
Obviously some will use this in an attempt to portray Corbyn supporters as hell bent on violence, but it is ironic, to say the very least, that so soon after Corbyn is condemned by some for refusing to express a willingness go to war with Russia his supporters are being denounced for not being pacifists.
[b][i]"Profound religion leads to political commitment and in a country such as ours where injustice reigns, conflict is inevitable… Christians have no fear of combat; they know how to fight but they prefer to speak the language of peace. Nevertheless, when a dictatorship violates human rights and attacks the common good of the nation, when it becomes unbearable and closes all channels of dialogue, of understanding, of rationality, when this happens the Church speaks of the legitimate right of insurrectional violence"[/i][/b] - Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador 1917 - 1980, defender of the poor, died a martyr's death at the hands of the Salvadoran Death Squads, and now on the way to being declared a saint by Pope Francis.
What is the JC Supporters club trying to equate themselves with the Suffragettes? It's like Weymouth FC claiming to be Arsenal.
And why do they need to prepare themselves for conflict (sorry, slight exaggeration there 😉 ) or even protest.
and i am the troll Frowns
They did not - which you would know had you searched for the info or informed yourself before commenting- I did so thanks for reading 😉
Furthermore i gave it as an example of where direct action may have been justified in order to achieve a noble legitimate political goal - do you agree or disagree that their direct action was legitimate and helped engender the women's vote? what about the people in america who did direct action for black rights or , dare i say it , and even jamby is with me now the jewish "terrorists" who helped create Israel?
I doubt anyone thinks it a good thing or a great thing but sometimes it is a legitimate thing.
in the soundbite world thats pretty catchy to beat them with the full acccount is a lot more wordy and i can sort of see their point - though its still daft to have removed it
I would focus on what the official Momentum spokesperson said, since this is about Momentum's position, not on what some person who the Guardian managed to dig up allegedly said to them.
I really don't think that the Guardian can be relied to give a fair and unbiased account on anything to do with Corbyn. They have proved beyond doubt not to be Corbyn supporters, nor have they proved to be unbiased against him. The Guardian would much rather his rival won and everything should be seen in that context imo.
250 pages! On Jeremy Corbyn!!!!250!
It's almost as if there's an obsession with Corbyn eh ?
It's 260 pages btw.
aye the guardian have been terrible and they absolutely hate him- its worse than this thread for bias
Make the most of it.
Direct action =/= violence
I'm all in favour of direct action in certain circumstances - blocking nuclear convoys, protest marches, the actions of Greenpeace. Those are not violence.
I really don't think that the Guardian can be relied to give a fair and unbiased account on anything to do with Corbyn. They have proved beyond doubt not to be Corbyn supporters, nor have they proved to be unbiased against him. The Guardian would much rather his rival won and everything should be seen in that context imo.
Perhaps they care about the Labour Party - they are not alone in not being supporters BTW. Perhaps they also reflect the interests of their readers. Everything could/should be seen in that context IMO.
Wrecker - where else do you go for such a rich vein of comedy gold? It's a better soap opera than the TV versions and a refreshing alternatives to sporting action. Above all the defence of the indefensible is side-splitting.
