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

[blandy]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Like Peter, I also disagree with this bit.

Not because I have any personal experience but just that this seems a tad out of place as an observer of politics. They all do that, don't they?

Probably Darren, yeah. I don’t want to post anything outside the site guidelines, but things like my Unions leadership elections, say typify to me the cronyism that goes so against the grain. If tories do it, too, meh, they’re them. Higher moral ground, equality, fairness... I’ll just stitch up any unwanted challenges and happy days and lovely London flats for me.  Any reference to jezzas unite Union buddy is purely coincidental.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Probably Darren, yeah. I don’t want to post anything outside the site guidelines, but things like my Unions leadership elections, say typify to me the cronyism that goes so against the grain. If tories do it, too, meh, they’re them. Higher moral ground, equality, fairness... I’ll just stitch up any unwanted challenges and happy days and lovely London flats for me.  Any reference to jezzas unite Union buddy is purely coincidental.

I think the issue is terminology, i.e. 'standard left wing'. The implication (or inference drawn) being that it's something that goes hand in hand with being 'of the left'. I'm sure you didn't mean that but that's how it came across.

 

[Xann]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

Enlighten me.

Not in this thread. It loons you out  

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

It isn’t.  There’s a long and often satirised and more seriously commented upon point that the left is so focused on internicine squabbles that renders it incapable of seeing the bigger enemy or point. The people’s front of Judea...militant, momentum.. so much ( in a way as we’re doing) dispute over right and wrong ways to advance that the opponents get the free reign on the wider field. Completely losing sight of the ultimate aim. Splitters!

Yes, there are internecine squabbles.  No, they are not only on the left, as any cursory glance of this week's press will tell you.

I sometimes wonder if "The Life of Brian" has been harmful in generating ths idea that daft ideological splits are in some way a left wing phenomenon.  I always saw it as more to do with the level of activity on the left when they wrote it - the right was never as active or interesting.

But you don't in any manner address my point.  It is the right wing of the Labour Party that has used arcane procedural measures to seek to stifle views witb which they disgaree.  You seem to think it's  the left.  You are wholly and demonstrably wrong in that.   As you get your information third hand, that's understandable and forgivable, but please, if you want to pursue it, bring forward some evidence.

[peterms]

 

[peterms]

 

[tonyh29]

7 hours ago, peterms said:

He didn't have a formal role.  He played a role, and it is for that informal role that you criticise him.

he was an advocate of SF policy  not a peacemaker as evidenced when he voted agaisnt the Anglo Irish agreement 

Corbyn talking to and siding with SF followed by the Good Friday Agreement over a decade later would be like Randy Lerner  taking credit for us winning the Champions league in 2022 when it happens 

[tonyh29]

17 minutes ago, peterms said:

 

He’s not really offering any context there though is he ? Maybe if a Tory Dame calls her leader a **** racist and anti Islamic in the H of C the BBC would have more pages on the subject (for example ) 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

4 hours ago, peterms said:

 

Is this dude suggesting the BBC is part of a Jewish run media that is disproportionately advancing its own cause over those of other minority groups? Racist! 

[HanoiVillan]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

Not to my mind. Indirectly, perhaps more so, but even then..

it’s far from so stark to my way of thinking. The UK is hardly if at all involved directly in “continuing unimaginable amounts of suffering.” 

But each to their own view

The logistical and governmental support we are providing to Saudi vis-a-vis Yemen is all I need as a counter argument. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The logistical and governmental support we are providing to Saudi vis-a-vis Yemen is all I need as a counter argument. 

So indirectly, then.

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

So indirectly, then.

Apart from by selling the planes and by selling the bombs and by refuelling the planes and by training the pilots and by providing an unbreakable political cover at the United Nations so that nothing can ever be done to end the conflict, we're doing nothing wrong, yeah. 

[blandy]

7 hours ago, peterms said:

Yes, there are internecine squabbles.  No, they are not only on the left, as any cursory glance of this week's press will tell you.

I sometimes wonder if "The Life of Brian" has been harmful in generating ths idea that daft ideological splits are in some way a left wing phenomenon.  I always saw it as more to do with the level of activity on the left when they wrote it - the right was never as active or interesting.

But you don't in any manner address my point.  It is the right wing of the Labour Party that has used arcane procedural measures to seek to stifle views witb which they disgaree.  You seem to think it's  the left.  You are wholly and demonstrably wrong in that.   As you get your information third hand, that's understandable and forgivable, but please, if you want to pursue it, bring forward some evidence.

In terms of addressing your point, you say it’s your experience and I believe you.

You cite your personal experience yet ask me for evidence and tell me I get my information third hand. Different standards, at all, much?

Each to their own, I suppose.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Apart from by selling the planes and by selling the bombs and by refuelling the planes and by training the pilots and by providing an unbreakable political cover at the United Nations so that nothing can ever be done to end the conflict....

Yes, there’s indirect support, sure. Not exactly as characterised, but close enough I guess. To my eyes the direct involvement is the Houthi fighters, the Saudi coalition forces and then indirectly Iran, US, UK etc...

The U.K. doesn’t seem to have done much to stop the war, certainly nothing effective, though whether we ever could, I dunno? we should try harder I agree. To me direct involvement in the killing would be dropping bombs or firing guns, rather than having sold Tornado bombers or maintenance contracts years ago. Maybe the U.K. is selling bombs to the Saudis which they drop on Yemen? I don’t know, but could quite believe it. Perhaps that nice Jeremy Corbyn will end all wars when he gets in. Let’s hope so.

[tonyh29]

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

Perhaps that nice Jeremy Corbyn will end all wars when he gets in. Let’s hope so.

His supporters will probably claim world war 2 ended because of his involvement

 

[peterms]

9 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

he was an advocate of SF policy  not a peacemaker as evidenced when he voted agaisnt the Anglo Irish agreement 

Corbyn talking to and siding with SF followed by the Good Friday Agreement over a decade later would be like Randy Lerner  taking credit for us winning the Champions league in 2022 when it happens 

The Anglo Irish Agreement was very different to the Good Friday Agreement, wasn't it? 

Corbyn has not taken credit for the GFA, just given his reasons for meeting Republicans at a time when we were supposed to "deny them the oxygen of publicity".  He thought, and I agree, that such meetings played a part in encouraging a move away from violence.  You may disagree, but presenting him as claiming credit for the GFA is a misrepresentation.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

In terms of addressing your point, you say it’s your experience and I believe you.

You cite your personal experience yet ask me for evidence and tell me I get my information third hand. Different standards, at all, much?

Each to their own, I suppose.

My personal experience is small and geographically limited, but it bears out many similar cases over a long period where right wing candidates were imposed on local constituencies by party officials, instead of being chosen in a democratic process.  That is what you could call dirty tricks.

When you say that Corbyn "has also demonstrated the standard left wing methods of getting rid of dissenters through dirty tricks", you must have something specific in mind.  It's not too much to ask you to reference it, surely?

[Xann]

5 hours ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Is this dude suggesting the BBC is part of a Jewish run media that is disproportionately advancing its own cause over those of other minority groups? Racist! 

Reckon he's probably aware that the BBC is state owned and despite the Queen being the head of state? She's not really involved in BBC editorial policy.

So if it's not Lizzy? Who's it going to be?

Why, it's the UK government that pulls the strings, and can't we tell.

[blandy]

45 minutes ago, peterms said:

My personal experience is small and geographically limited, but it bears out many similar cases over a long period where right wing candidates were imposed on local constituencies by party officials, instead of being chosen in a democratic process.  That is what you could call dirty tricks.

When you say that Corbyn "has also demonstrated the standard left wing methods of getting rid of dissenters through dirty tricks", you must have something specific in mind.  It's not too much to ask you to reference it, surely?

Changing the make up of the NEC to add new posts to get Corbyn fans on, and to purge non-Corbynites (Ann Black) and then changing the rules. Weakening the role of the Deputy leader, imposing HQ candidates over local party decisions (Watford), Haringey. Twitter campaigns to get rid of Watson and others, deselection threats on MPs they feel are too right wing (Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips, Angela Eagle, Chris Leslie...). Then there's the (treading careful legal lines) allegations of trumping up disciplinary charges to get rid of people who are a thorn in the side (Ian Austin, Margaret Hodge...). As with your example - all above board of course, but as you rightly say "That is what you could call dirty tricks"

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Changing the make up of the NEC to add new posts to get Corbyn fans on, and to purge non-Corbynites (Ann Black) and then changing the rules.

The new posts gave increased representation to members.  The rules about the relative influence of party members, MPs, unions have been a matter of debate and periodic change for very many years.  It's a regular debate, and the process is allowed for and part of the party's rules.  Dirty tricks would involve some kind of improper conduct, not just an outcome some people don't like.  I'm sure the right of the party would like more representation for MPs and less for members, but I suspect most members would disagree.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Weakening the role of the Deputy leader,

I'm not aware of this?

1 hour ago, blandy said:

imposing HQ candidates over local party decisions (Watford), Haringey.

In Watford, the selection panel chose not to allow nominations from party branches.  I would call that dirty tricks, aimed at fixing the shortlist.  A Corbyinte was then added to the shortlist by the central party, in response to complaints about the fix.  He didn't get chosen, because members voted for someone else - fair enough.  In Haringey, there seems to have been a very big falling-out on the back of the council administration trying to sell off lots of council assets.  Aditya Chakraborty has written about how this has been presented as a left wing plot, when actually it was about the actions of the administration and people close to them being unacceptable to party members (and other local residents).

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Twitter campaigns to get rid of Watson and others, deselection threats on MPs they feel are too right wing (Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips, Angela Eagle, Chris Leslie...)

If MPs display rank disloyalty and seek to undermine the party, they can expect problems, as in other parties.  If they do that and also lose the support of local members, it's likely that there will be efforts to remove them.  That's entirely unsurprising.  It's not a new thing, it's not confined to whether people support or oppose Corbyn, and it's not dirty tricks - it's about accountability.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

allegations of trumping up disciplinary charges to get rid of people who are a thorn in the side (Ian Austin, Margaret Hodge.

If any left winger had acted towards Blair the way Hodge did to Corbyn, do you think there would have been a disciplinary process?  The surprise is that she's not being hauled over the coals.  Compare that for example with the recent treatment of Marc Wadsworth.