Jump to content

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


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

That just about nails it.

I made a mistake. It's late. It happens. It's an error with a keyboard.

No thought to the poster's history. I mean w've not been on this site for quite a few years have we, Peter?

Good night, Snowy.  This is going nowhere, and is unhelpful for all concerned.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, snowychap said:

You don't get to pretend that you're being decent here. You're quite obviously not.

It's a shame. I used to take what you posted seriously.

without wishing to take sides  , that's a little unwarranted

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, peterms said:

Don't let the door hit your arse on your way out.

That's false. The motions of NC are that "Instead of fighting for a Labour government, our MP is continually using the media to criticise the man we all want to be Prime Minister." and "continuously criticising our leader when she should be working towards a general election"

Nothing to do with alleged threats to Leave or start a new party.

It's insidious. "Labour's a broad church" [unless you criticise Saint Jeremy, or complain about the feeble efforts to address anti-semitism, of which she has been a repeated victim].

Front benchers a while back all got sacked for going against the whip on "remain/2nd ref" . Last week front benchers voted with the tories against Yvette Cooper's amendment and against a 3 line whip, but because Jeremy agrees with them, they don't get sacked. Last week (probably a bit longer now) those effwits who could have stopped no deal, beaten May and the Tories in parliament - let off. But She's gonna get deselected.

The cult of Jezza will and is wrecking Labour.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blandy said:

That's false. The motions of NC are that "Instead of fighting for a Labour government, our MP is continually using the media to criticise the man we all want to be Prime Minister." and "continuously criticising our leader when she should be working towards a general election"

Nothing to do with alleged threats to Leave or start a new party.

It's insidious. "Labour's a broad church" [unless you criticise Saint Jeremy, or complain about the feeble efforts to address anti-semitism, of which she has been a repeated victim].

Front benchers a while back all got sacked for going against the whip on "remain/2nd ref" . Last week front benchers voted with the tories against Yvette Cooper's amendment and against a 3 line whip, but because Jeremy agrees with them, they don't get sacked. Last week (probably a bit longer now) those effwits who could have stopped no deal, beaten May and the Tories in parliament - let off. But She's gonna get deselected.

The cult of Jezza will and is wrecking Labour.

Yep. Alienating moderates like myself who just wouldn't vote for Labour in its current state. It's a shame.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Yep. Alienating moderates like myself who just wouldn't vote for Labour in its current state. It's a shame.

Plus one for that sentiment here. It's actually quite a relief that I'm in a Tory / Lib Dem marginal meaning I don't even have a decision to wrestle with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'm not sure you can complain too much if your local party membership doesn't like your actions so tries to bin you.

No, that's democracy.

Of course, that the proposer of the second motion has called her a "disruptive Zionist"  (what with her complaining about Labour being too weak in its actions on anti-semitism and everything) is entirely unworth of complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, that's democracy.

Of course, that the proposer of the second motion has called her a "disruptive Zionist"  (what with her complaining about Labour being too weak in its actions on anti-semitism and everything) is entirely unworth of complaint.

And if she is a disruptive Zionist? Clearly she's a big fan of Israel and it's clear that the Labour party is shifting away from staunch support of Israel, she might be someone her local party no longer wants to represent them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chindie said:

And if she is a disruptive Zionist? Clearly she's a big fan of Israel and it's clear that the Labour party is shifting away from staunch support of Israel, she might be someone her local party no longer wants to represent them. 

Put it in the motion. "we want to get rid of our MP for being a Zionist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Put it in the motion. "we want to get rid of our MP for being a Zionist".

And they didn't. They gave the motion as effectively acting against the interests of the party as it stands (that is, to have it be elected in essence).

Storm in a teacup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

she might be someone her local party no longer wants to represent them

And that's fair enough - much like it is in the case of Boles for the Tories.

It's the discussion surrounding these deselections, though, which is the troubling part.

Some of the language and attitude towards them and the people involved is particularly unpleasant.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

And they didn't. They gave the motion as effectively acting against the interests of the party as it stands (that is, to have it be elected in essence).

Storm in a teacup.

They did, there are two separate VONCs, its in the second one apparently 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bickster said:

They did, there are two separate VONCs, its in the second one apparently 

Fair enough. It doesn't change the fundamental point - the local party doesn't feel she represents them, so they're acting to bin her. 

I see nothing wrong with this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chindie said:

And they didn't. They gave the motion as effectively acting against the interests of the party as it stands (that is, to have it be elected in essence).

Storm in a teacup.

Perhaps it is. I mean that Labour is currently effectively purging itself, bit by bit, of people who don't rate Corbyn - well that's up to them. If they want a Corbyn party, fine. Democracy innit. And I'm sure some of the ones who don't rate or agree with Corbyn will leave of their own volition, too - better jump than pushed, maybe. Whatever.

We could end up with Labour imploding under Corbyn and ther tories imploding under May (or whichever throbber follows her) and that would be a double bonus.

Though personally I think it would be nice to have a party that wasn't living in the 1970s or earlier to protect and stand up for....

oh, whatever...meh. The bells are winning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

And that's fair enough - much like it is in the case of Boles for the Tories.

It's the discussion surrounding these deselections, though, which is the troubling part.

Some of the language and attitude towards them and the people involved is particularly unpleasant.

I've not been privy to the discussions around it, I'm sure it'll be invoking the anti-semitism stuff and so on again. Anything that is genuinely nasty in thise discussions should be decried of course.

My comments here are more promoted by the commentary online, that send to be nudge nudge, wink wink towards to the anti Semitism nonsense of last year. When the reality as far as I have seen seems to be that she's a parachuted in MP that has views fundamentally disagreed with by her local party, with further suggestion that she's actually not that great of an MP anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I've not been privy to the discussions around it

Nor was I particularly until yesterday.

If it were merely a consideration of how fitting a local party viewed their MP then, as I said above, that would be fine. But it's not - it's about people being 'cuckoos', 'parasitically using it (the party)', or being disloyal to an individual or in the case of Boles being labelled a traitor and an anti-democrat and so on.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Chindie said:

They gave the motion as effectively acting against the interests of the party as it stands

I posted the (abbreviated) text of the two motions of NC

 "Instead of fighting for a Labour government, our MP is continually using the media to criticise the man we all want to be Prime Minister." and "continuously criticising our leader when she should be working towards a general election"
She's criticised him on Brexit and anti-semitism - not exactly a unique position she finds herself in. SHe's also completely right, as it happens, but that's irrelevant. Sad that Labour can't stomach remainy non racists any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â