Current Affairs Critically ill man is former Russian spy

[roydo]

That is what we are repeatedly told, but it is very arguable as to whether it is actually true - for a start, there were all the shenanigans around the 2016 leadership election when the party machine tried to disenfranchise quite a bit of Corbyn's support in a shameful way. Then you have the fact that the only group openly trying to deselect a Labour MP at the last election was associated with Mandelson (and indeed Progress-related groups had tried it on several occasions since 2007).

Supporters of Corbyn, on here, tonight, have advocated a purge of Labour MPs who dont agree with him.

Thats what I was reacting to. Democracy, as long as I agree with it

 

[magicjuan]

Yes. I see politics beyond the black and white of it. Just because Corbyn wants to help the poor doesn't mean his methods if given power would help them. Indeed, my firm belief is that he'd badly harm them long term.

As for warmongering? Nobody is doing anything of the sort here. 'Standing firm' isn't warmongering, and it's a damn sight better an option than appeasement a la Neville Chamberlain.



Momentum.

By default you're calling Tessie May 'Churchillian'. Which has genuinely tickled me. Mainly because it's patent nonsense.

 

[roydo]

By default you're calling Tessie May 'Churchillian'. Which has genuinely tickled me. Mainly because it's patent nonsense.

Tis quite a leap.

 

[tsubaki]

Supporters of Corbyn, on here, tonight, have advocated a purge of Labour MPs who dont agree with him.

Thats what I was reacting to. Democracy, as long as I agree with it

There is a world of difference between what supporters on an internet forum say and what a leadership actually does.

By this point in Kinnock's time (nearly two and a half years in) he was already well down the road of getting rid of Militant and "his" opposition, whereas Corbyn's opponents are still MPs, still organize within Labour, still run councils and their voices are still heard within the party (indeed their voices are probably heard a little too much within the party given how small a segment of it they actually represent). What official sanctions have the likes of Woodcock or Gapes faced?

 

[magicjuan]

Well thats the point I meant. Kinnock felt he was reclaiming his party from Militant, Corbyn wants to reclaim his party from Blairism.

Ergo, the same.

When if they actually looked at, or asked, those who vote Left, Soft Left, Right Left MPs in, I would guess the answers would be varied. A political party that appeals to a varied voter base just might be a successful one. But no, some want to purge those who dont agree with them. Dont get it.

It isn't disagree with 'them' it's disagree with/refuse to follow policy. Corbyn is a threat to their gravy train.

 

[magicjuan]

Tis quite a leap.

Why? If Corbyn is akin to Chamberlain in appeasement then May's stance represents the opposite, Churchill. Not a big leap at all.

 

[roydo]

There is a world of difference between what supporters on an internet forum say and what a leadership actually does.

By this point in Kinnock's time (nearly two and a half years in) he was already well down the road of getting rid of Militant and "his" opposition, whereas Corbyn's opponents are still MPs, still organize within Labour, still run councils and their voices are still heard within the party (indeed their voices are probably heard a little too much within the party given how small a segment of it they actually represent). What official sanctions have the likes of Woodcock or Gapes faced?

Well I was commenting on what someone said on an internet forum.

And who?

 

[roydo]

It isn't disagree with 'them' it's disagree with/refuse to follow policy. Corbyn is a threat to their gravy train.

I must be missing something. Corbyn voted against Labour gazilions of times. But now everyone has to follow his policy? Or be purged?

Why? If Corbyn is akin to Chamberlain in appeasement then May's stance represents the opposite, Churchill. Not a big leap at all.

I was agreeing with you. May to Churchill is quite a leap.

 

[tsubaki]

Well I was commenting on what someone said on an internet forum.

And who?

I know, its just we are contrasting what Kinnock actually did with what some people on the internet want to do - I was trying to point out that Corbyn hasn't done anything of the kind yet, even though we are repeatedly told that he is.

Woodcock and Gapes are two anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, Woodcock possibly being the most prominent.

 

[roydo]

Corbyn hasn't done anything of the kind yet

Indeed......

 

[peteblue]

..oh boy, that's a losing game you chose there for yourself.......Iraq, Afghanistan, a history of colonisation and butchery and imperialism in all its forms....the Russian state will have to be in existence for another 300 years to get up to that body count.

So we win then.....

 

[peteblue]

Which one?

Ours......

 

[magicjuan]

I must be missing something. Corbyn voted against Labour gazilions of times. But now everyone has to follow his policy? Or be purged?




I was agreeing with you. May to Churchill is quite a leap.

Corbyn wasn't usurping policy to oust a leader, there was no campaign. He was elected properly, despite huge character assassination and lobbying against him. Party policies. Not his alone.

Apologies on second point, my misreading.

 

[peteblue]

..oh boy, that's a losing game you chose there for yourself.......Iraq, Afghanistan, a history of colonisation and butchery and imperialism in all its forms....the Russian state will have to be in existence for another 300 years to get up to that body count.

Well Stalin was responsible for the deaths of about 20-25Million, I’m not sure that we have killed that many in the last 1000 years........so maybe they win.....

 

[roydo]

Corbyn wasn't usurping policy to oust a leader, there was no campaign. He was elected properly, despite huge character assassination and lobbying against him. Party policies. Not his alone.

Apologies on second point, my misreading.

Yep he was. No problem with that.