Bore off yourself! I wasn't talking specifically about Creasy; I was talking about Progress. Don't call me an idiot and tell me to bore off. cnut!
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
It would be good if more had her sense. The leadership election has been secured there's no need for them to carry on weakening the party.
Hopefully the task masters have told them as such.
A year ago I arrived home from work to find the locks had been changed and some of my possessions were out in the communal corridor. I was behind in the rent, working from 6am to 6pm for minimum wage and waiting for a long-delayed housing benefit payment. The landlord had applied for a possession order which had been "stayed" by the court owing to him having falsified documents and not protecting my deposit. Prior to that he had refused to fix my boiler , had physically cut the cable supplying telephone, TV and internet and removed the main fuse for the electricity. I had complained to the council. They wrote to him telling him this harrassment was a serious matter. He ignored it, just as he would later ignore the court's ruling on the possession order. He took all my worldly possessions, including things passed down to me by my recently deceased parents and... well... everything bar what I was standing up in when I arrived home. I knew he had acted illegally and went straight down to the police station. They were closed. I slept rough and called the agency the next day to say I couldn't do my zero hours driving job because I hadn't slept well. I spent the next 6 months on friends' sofas, homeless shelters and often in doorways until the council was able to house me. I still don't have my possessions back. The police say it's a "civil matter". I can't get legal aid. The council have been useless - other than housing me, of course, for which I am grateful. My 6 months on the street opened my eyes to the extent of the problem. There are a lot of people in the same boat. It's serious folks!
When it comes down to it, launching a nuke is mass murder. No question. It is not a "load previous saved game" thing; it's "game over". In the end game it's not a deterrent. It would be insane to launch a nuke - full stop. An insane person would not be put off pressing the button because they feared reprisal. They would do it anyway.
Hope so too. They have no excuse for the current dereliction of duties since the leadership election was called. The only real motivation now can be to undermine Corbyn, but if they are really so concerned about not being able to do that they can just do the jobs while talking about how much better it would be under Smith.
This isnt just casual contributions though as you're inadvertently suggesting. He's heavily invested in their campaigning and championed their cause.
Of course since they're a group who want rid of Corbyn suddenly they're all good in many peoples eyes. Shame such discussion is tainted by the question of whose side your on.
There are plenty of other moderate groups within labour looking to reach out across the factions. Neither Momentum as activists or Progress should be heavily influencing the party but id take the grass routes over the elitists anyday.
Last edited:
You are right that the idea of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent relies on rational actors on both sides, which won't necessarily always be the case. But in a dangerous world where some countries have nukes and some don't, I'd much rather have them than not.
Sorry mate, genuinely, and for your recent troubles. Hope you're on the other side of all that and things are going well now.
I just don't enjoy all the "Red Tory", "Blairite scum" nonsense that keeps coming and coming from the Momentum 'side' in this debate. It stifles any chance of compromise, and the more people convince themselves that those who disagree with them in the Labour Party are evil, or see the world in a completely different way, the worse our chances of any sort of success at the end of this go. If you, and many others, truly believe that the centre-left are the enemy, then the Party is truly dead, and there's no chance of any government to the left of David Cameron's in the next 15 years. The Labour Party is a shambles at the moment but it doesn't have to be forever. The left is on track to eat itself, it doesn't need to.
Why? The prick that pressed the button that nuked you, your family, everyone in the hospital down the road, the kids in the playground... he's safe in a bunker. Launching in response won't touch him/her. It will, however, incinerate patients in the hospital down the road from his bunker, the kids in the playground down the road from his bunker...
Thanks for the conciliaritory tone and I apologise too. I'd love to be able to say "yeah, it was tough, but I'm OK now" but I'd be lying. Things are still very tough. I am on the losing side in a class war I'm afraid.
It's the fact that having nukes makes it less likely another rational person/state is going to nuke you. Obviously, it doesn't stop anyone insane nuking you. It's a (somewhat effective) deterrent.
The choice of whether to fire nukes in response to an attack is a separate question - obviously your enemies have to think that you're willing to nuke them in response, whether you actually would in reality or not. That's the whole point.
Do you really, honestly, think that a rational person/state is going to nuke you? Really? I can well understand wanting to get the guy that hurt you or people you care about. That's not nukes though. That's not weapons of mass destruction. That's conventional arms. A whole different thing. You might want a well regulated militia for that.
Id say its more a loose assumption than a fact. I dont believe it stops conventional warfare from escalating and in that case the chances of a state deploying a nuclear weapon become worryingly feasible.
This lose-lose scenario thats always described only works in peace time. The only ones who will use nuclear weaponry then would be crazy rogue states or terrorist groups.
Yeah, I largely agree with this. A case in which an enemy is going to nuke us is probably one in which having nukes won't make much of a difference.
I do see the argument that it's perhaps better to be on the safe side, but when you see the money involved in renewing them, it seems a bit of a waste when we're pretty much admitting the weapons are going to sit there as a sort-of deterrent.
Edit - Just had a look back and he was talking about Progress(Which is pretty much a right wing section of the Labour Party)
So my apologies - @DenisIrwin
Last edited:
Anyway
Owen Smith Newsnight interview
Owen Smith Newsnight interview
He was the main backer of the sdlp / sdp back in the day... He has been nothing but consistent in backing the politics he personally believe in even before Corbyn was an mp
Though as I say 250k to progress vs 18.5m to labour vs 1bn+ to charities perhaps puts some perspective on the extent of his contributions (again he put more into vote remain than he did into progress)
As for the whole labour movement I think society has changed so much that the Labour party needs to look at its self and think if it can properly hold in both wings of the party to one coherent movement and personally I think the answer is no and it's time to split
Last edited:
Perhaps i misunderstood the context of the discussion i replied to, i wasnt insinuating he was funding progress to get Corbyn out directly merely that Progress is in my view an unwelcome lobby group trying to manipulate the party further right than it should be (imo anyway). I just don't think the party should be run by the elites who claim ownership.
I don't agree with your split though, i think the moderates need to step in. The party should be able to find a way to use the growing activism to its benefit and it should be able to do so without ignoring the electorate or pissing off its own members.
Could be an outlier, but if they stay at this level (or the leads continue to grow), May isn't going to be missing out on the chance.
wouldnt she need labour mp's to vote for an early election (fixed term parliament act?)... Turkeys voting for Xmas springs to mind so I dont know if they would risk it (though they will look utterly shambolic protesting against the government but not being prepared to face the electorate and they would have truly failed the test of being an effective opposition - at that point you could argue they are not even a functioning opposition)
No. They could do that just to feck with Labour. But if Labour oppose a new election under the fixed term Parliament act then the Conservatives would vote to repeal the act (which only requires a simple majority) and then conduct a new vote.
Parliament cannot be bound by a previous act of Parliament.
I think she'll triggger article 50 and get negotiations well under way before she calls an election. It'll make it more difficult for Labour to then promise a second referendum but also make the tories look like theyre in control of things.
Winning an extra year at this point isnt much of a big deal to her. Might as well let Labour continue to canabalise itself
It's not so much the extra year that's useful, it's the heavily increased majority - it's currently 12 and there are a significant number of bastards on her backbenches that could cause trouble if given the opportunity. It could be well over 100 if these numbers were replicated in an election. She's also then got Labour probably at least 2 elections away in terms of seats from even being an electoral threat. Plus, she may want to make the most of the advantage before any hits to the economy. I suppose the question is whether Labour can fall any lower, and whether she can afford to wait for that.
Last edited:
I think that would make it easier - they then promice the referendum on the result of the negotiations (which they can spin as being rushed and ill thought out by the tories)... though for that to succeed they have to stop infighting which frankly just is not going to happen
the big advantage for May would be winning an election giver her a mandate - which she of course famously said Brown never had because he didn't call an election
Crazy idea, but maybe (just maybe) don't claim your foreign policy is "ethical" a week after the first part of it turns out to be nuclear weapons.
Reminder, this is the face of a movement that wants their leader removed because "he can't get his message across". The thought that this guy is the answer is utterly laughable, bordering on deluded.
Labour leadership: Legal action against Corbyn ballot vote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36886159
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36886159
Its hardly surprising - whichever side lost there was going to be a challenge in the court... hopefully its resolved quickly
Hardly suprising? A Labour donor has taken the NEC to court because not only does he not like the members decision he also doesnt like the NECs ruling won by a majority vote.
We should just save money scrap the NEC and member votes and let the donors decide instead.
Yes - but Corbyn said before the vote if it didnt go the way he wanted then he would go to court - so as I say it was going to happen whichever side won the vote.
I think we should just scrap the labour party as the divergent views are becoming more and more tribal and the country deserves a functioning opposition
Sorry but the fact both may argue it beyond the decision doesnt make it less suprising that a donor is trying to go above the NEC and members. Corbyn would have been representing his members will, who is the donor representing exactly?
I like engaging with the mixed opinions on here but i cant see why the anti-corbyn posters consistently fail to recognise the ridiculous behaviour by some of the actors in the rebellion. I mean most of those still backing Corbyn on here at least recognise his errors and the ridiculousness of figures as McCluskly, Ken etc.
I think its a shame he decided to challenge it but it is of course his legal right to do so... you could of course argue he is doing so because thats what the majority of the PLP who represent their constituencies and the wider people who voted labour want rather than the 1% of the country that is the labour party but of course its too tribal for either side to recognise the rights and wrongs of the other side.
The party should split in my opinion and the sooner the better as the country needs a functioning opposition... its going to be months of a protracted leadership contest - almost certainly followed by some kind of purge leading to a split - lets just get it over with.
I don't see your logic - Unless we have PR, such a split is only going to obliterate the left in the UK.
I would like to think we might one day join the civilised world and have PR
But Scotland leaving the UK (which seems a possibility as well) would probably make the electoral math even more tricky for the left as well the whole left of Uk politics needs a big rethink and I believe a split in the labour party will be the best way of achieving this and finding out what actually appeals to the electorate rather than the politically engaged party members
Doesn't surprise me when there's a least one new story about infighting every single day.
WTF??? 
WTF???
When a loss is a win.
As predicted that agenda driven Guardian article was a load of horseshit.
Can someone please explain to me why she's still in that office? Is it the same as with other workers ie they have to give 1/3 months notice when leaving their job?WTF???
I'm going to go ahead with a prediction... Corbyn to win with 80%.