The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Are you not missing that for him to call the party's position bollocks and then to say that he still supports it is, frankly, bollocks.

Ha! yes, that's true.

I don't care if they sack him or not. Labour "lost" me a while back. I was trying (poorly) to put across that what the article seemed to be telling me was that (whatever his other many flaws) he'd actually said something on Brexit which I assessed to be more honest than most have said on Brexit - that all this tests and jobs first and votes on the deal stuff is a clusterpork and indeed is bollocks.

Presumably he's not potted because he's a Corbyn ally. And Corbyn only pots non-fellow travellers.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I was trying (poorly) to put across that what the article seemed to be telling me was that (whatever his other many flaws) he'd actually said something on Brexit which I assessed to be more honest than most have said on Brexit - that all this tests and jobs first and votes on the deal stuff is a clusterpork and indeed is bollocks.

Ah, fair enough. I agree but he could, perhaps, have stood by what he said rather than seemingly disown it.

Autocorrect?

[blandy]

Just now, snowychap said:

Ah, fair enough. I agree but he could, perhaps, have stood by what he said rather than seemingly disown it.

Autocorrect?

But that would mean being openly honest, rather than secretly honest....

Not autocorrect, it's my clean version to stay within this splendid site's guidelines. I can't be misbehaving - not got the time, too busy "accidentally" deleting politics threads. Doh! cat out of bag. Damn.

[magnkarl]

Corbyn took a bit of a beating last night for his response to antisemitism I see. Generally when the government calls a debate that targets the opposition it's the other way around but it's not often I've seen so many Labour MP's openly thrash their leader like this. If Corbyn had a clue he'd get rid of Livingstone today - but I presume he'll try to drag it out to save his dear racist old friend.

The stories that many of the Jewish MPs told of the abuse they receive from mostly left Labour supporters proves that Labour has a big problem with this. The way Corbyn lets high profile cases like Livingstone, Shah, giving holocaust deniers a platform at the conference, Shawcroft +++ just bubble along gives space for more racists to feel that it's okay to behave like this. Labour's response: "It's all a smear by the media and the rich Jews!"

As a British Jew I can't believe that I considered voting for Labour in the last election - the anti racist party who lets racists stay on board because they're high profile.

Edited April 18, 2018 by magnkarl

[bickster]

35 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Corbyn took a bit of a beating last night for his response to antisemitism I see. Generally when the government calls a debate that targets the opposition it's the other way around but it's not often I've seen so many Labour MP's openly thrash their leader like this. If Corbyn had a clue he'd get rid of Livingstone today - but I presume he'll try to drag it out to save his dear racist old friend.

The stories that many of the Jewish MPs told of the abuse they receive from mostly left Labour supporters proves that Labour has a big problem with this. The way Corbyn lets high profile cases like Livingstone, Shah, giving holocaust deniers a platform at the conference, Shawcroft +++ just bubble along gives space for more racists to feel that it's okay to behave like this. Labour's response: "It's all a smear by the media and the rich Jews!"

As a British Jew I can't believe that I considered voting for Labour in the last election - the anti racist party who lets racists stay on board because they're high profile.

You do know that Ken Livingstone isn't currently a member of the Labour Party, don't you? What should Corbyn do, get Putin to take him out with a Novichok attack? You also realise that Corbyn has little control over the disciplinary structure of the Labour Party, nor should he in a democratic organisation.As much as I think Corbyn's an idiot, I can't see how he can do the right thing whatever he does on this issue in some people's eyes

[dAVe80]

Yeah, so here's a story for you. My friend was named in the Daily Mail the other day, in relation to a Labour anti-Semitism story. He was named along with others, in a 'New anti-Semitism Labour shame' piece, in which they quoted his pen portrait (which he wrote for a position he was standing for in the party), in which they claimed he was against kicking out members who were accused of anti-Semitism. His portrait in fact contained a reference to being against the purge of Corbyn supporting members, during the last leadership election, but you know, never let the facts, etc etc.

Edited April 18, 2018 by dAVe80

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You do know that Ken Livingstone isn't currently a member of the Labour Party, don't you? What should Corbyn do, get Putin to take him out with a Novichok attack? You also realise that Corbyn has little control over the disciplinary structure of the Labour Party, nor should he in a democratic organisation.As much as I think Corbyn's an idiot, I can't see how he can do the right thing whatever he does on this issue in some people's eyes

pedant but Corbyn doesn't think Russia do things like that , he would ask the British to do it 

 

He is suspended from the party , that would kinda still make him a member  wouldn't it ?  hence why they are discussing his expulsion 

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, dAVe80 said:

in which they claimed he was against kicking out members who were accused of anti-Semitism. His portrait in fact contained a reference to being against the purge of Corbyn supporting members, during the last leadership election

same thing isn't it ?

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

giving holocaust deniers a platform at the conference

Not this old one again?

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

You do know that Ken Livingstone isn't currently a member of the Labour Party, don't you? What should Corbyn do, get Putin to take him out with a Novichok attack? You also realise that Corbyn has little control over the disciplinary structure of the Labour Party, nor should he in a democratic organisation.As much as I think Corbyn's an idiot, I can't see how he can do the right thing whatever he does on this issue in some people's eyes

Suspension isn't the same as expulsion. He's still a member of the labour party just like a footballer would still be a member of a team if he was suspended. I don't get why people misunderstand that.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Suspension isn't the same as expulsion. He's still a member of the labour party just like a footballer would still be a member of a team if he was suspended. I don't get why people misunderstand that.

I understand you don't understand democratic process

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I understand you don't understand democratic process

Democratic process? Just like all the MP's Corbyn have booted out for not doing his bidding you mean? Livingstone is a big eyesore for anyone who actually has some common sense in the Labour party. The fact that he's close to Corbyn's love for all things Hamas makes him hard for Corbyn to get rid of.

Other parties (including Tories) remove people from their parties for much less all the time, yet in this case it's argued that it's undemocratic?

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

Yeah, so here's a story for you. My friend was named in the Daily Mail the other day, in relation to a Labour anti-Semitism story. He was named along with others, in a 'New anti-Semitism Labour shame' piece, in which they quoted his pen portrait (which he wrote for a position he was standing for in the party), in which they claimed he was against kicking out members who were accused of anti-Semitism. His portrait in fact contained a reference to being against the purge of Corbyn supporting members, during the last leadership election, but you know, never let the facts, etc etc.

Admitting there's a problem is the first step in curing Labour's issues on this subject. Sending dead birds to people who say Labour has a antisemitism problem isn't, calling for Jewish MP's to be barred from the party for telling their stories of racist abuse isn't. The whole "fake news media"-angle that people in Labour take on Labour's clear issues only gives idiots like Livingstone ammunition to spew his idiocy.

But you know, the  "hurr durr Daily Mail, we're not racist at all" attitude has really helped stomp these attitudes out, right? What about when it's written in the Guardian?

Edited April 18, 2018 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Democratic process? Just like all the MP's Corbyn have booted out for not doing his bidding you mean? Livingstone is a big eyesore for anyone who actually has some common sense in the Labour party. The fact that he's close to Corbyn's love for all things Hamas makes him hard for Corbyn to get rid of.

Other parties (including Tories) remove people from their parties for much less all the time, yet in this case it's argued that it's undemocratic?

As has been the case before, you take a good point and then push it way too far. Corbyn doesn't have the power to 'boot out MP's', whatever that means. He has sacked people from his shadow cabinet, but then so has every other Leader of the Opposition in history. A shadow cabinet reshuffle is not anti-democratic, since the positions are not awarded on the basis of any democratic process in the first place. 

Do the Tories remove people for much less all the time? Isn't Anne Marie Morris still suspended, in a basically similar fashion to Livingstone? Genuine questions. 

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

As has been the case before, you take a good point and then push it way too far. Corbyn doesn't have the power to 'boot out MP's', whatever that means. He has sacked people from his shadow cabinet, but then so has every other Leader of the Opposition in history. A shadow cabinet reshuffle is not anti-democratic, since the positions are not awarded on the basis of any democratic process in the first place. 

Do the Tories remove people for much less all the time? Isn't Anne Marie Morris still suspended, in a basically similar fashion to Livingstone? Genuine questions. 

She had the whip restored in December 2017... just before a crucial Brexit vote (which the Government lost anyway) 

So in actual fact, that's worse isn't it, especially as the remarks that caused her suspension were bonafide racist as opposed to religious intolerance erroneously called racism to suit an agenda

[magnkarl]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

As has been the case before, you take a good point and then push it way too far. Corbyn doesn't have the power to 'boot out MP's', whatever that means. He has sacked people from his shadow cabinet, but then so has every other Leader of the Opposition in history. A shadow cabinet reshuffle is not anti-democratic, since the positions are not awarded on the basis of any democratic process in the first place. 

Do the Tories remove people for much less all the time? Isn't Anne Marie Morris still suspended, in a basically similar fashion to Livingstone? Genuine questions. 

As far as I know Anne Marie Morris had her whip restored in December. I don't agree with that either.

The big difference here is that Ken Livingstone has been "suspended" for over 2 years. It's ridiculous. And the fact that he's still adamant that he's quoting "historical fact" about something so stupid makes him a continued repeat offender. There is absolutely zero reason why he should still be a part of Labour.

[bickster]

Just now, magnkarl said:

As far as I know Anne Marie Morris had her whip restored in December. I don't agree with that either.

The big difference here is that Ken Livingstone has been "suspended" for over 2 years. It's ridiculous. And the fact that he's still adamant that he's quoting "historical fact" about something so stupid makes him a continued repeat offender. There is absolutely zero reason why he should still be a part of Labour.

So what your saying is, The Conservatives have a stricter disciplinary regime even though they don't as you just actually had proved to you. Possibly the first time I've ever seen whataboutism prove the person doing it to be making an absolutely bollocks claim Bravo sir! a feat in itself

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The big difference here is that Ken Livingstone has been "suspended" for over 2 years. It's ridiculous. And the fact that he's still adamant that he's quoting "historical fact" about something so stupid makes him a continued repeat offender. There is absolutely zero reason why he should still be a part of Labour.

This bit is exactly right, IMO. My perception is that 2 years ago there wasn't the current "public eye" furore about anti-semitism in Labour (tbf Livingstone's idiocy partly generated that furore). So he was suspended with an unspoken eye (mixed metaphor) on "letting him back in a bit, once the fuss dies down", but the fuss (rightly) has never died down. He should have been hoofed out back then, but he was one of Jezza's buddies, and now they're stuck between throwing him out now, when nothing's changed and so admitting they were wrong not to do so originally, thus confirming their problem, or alternatively, letting him back...ditto, or leaving him in Limbo...ditto. They've proper effed this one up, because of  hypocrisy and double standards. Serves the Corbidiots at the top of Labour right.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

So what your saying is, The Conservatives have a stricter disciplinary regime even though they don't as you just actually had proved to you. Possibly the first time I've ever seen whataboutism prove the person doing it to be making an absolutely bollocks claim Bravo sir! a feat in itself

You mean in the case where I just said I disagree with the tory party ruling? I'm not sure if I should be flattered about all this attention.

I can name you plenty of people who have been expelled in the tory party for much less than what she was cleared of.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You mean in the case where I just said I disagree with the tory party ruling? I'm not sure if I should be flattered about all this attention.

I can name you plenty of people who have been expelled in the tory party for much less than what she was cleared of.

So you say, I've yet to see any actual evidence of that though. I can state the moon is made of Blue Cheese doesn't mean it is