Well I definitely saw that one ^^

Phew, would hate for you to miss out.

Its more than fearing for their careers. 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 and to admit that they compromised their principles and dreams for nothing. It strikes to the very heart of their egos so its simply impossible for them to admit they might be wrong.

This is helped by the fact most of them have no clue what is happening outside of the westminster bubble

most of them have no clue what is happening outside of the westminster bubble

Of course, the Messiah has excellent experience outside of the London centric political world, hasn’t he……

😀

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 a TV/newspaper interview ! 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?

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

http://www.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

😀 😀

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.

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?

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 🙂

*sniggers at CFH*

Has Junky been saying anything recently, by the way? Haven’t been reading any of his waffle

If only you knew what misspelt gems you were missing

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?