Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Sprocket.]

Tom Watson in a drawer be better!

 

[ska invita]

View attachment 90614
View attachment 90615
View attachment 90616

apart from the shadow cabinet one good one

 

[Rob Ray]

Tom Watson in a drawer be better!

It's the only one that'd fit his ego.

 

[DaveCinzano]

View attachment 90618

We're gonna need a bigger drawer

 

[Rob Ray]

Sophy Ridge being barracked a bit for this one, lazy as hell from Tom Watson.






Edit: in the full version (as opposed to Ridge's screengrab) Watson does note the source as Crick's book, however gives no information on why he thinks the phrase is being sent round people.

 

[brogdale]

Corbyn's time really is up.












according to Smith.

 

[squirrelp]

I love that social media is so quickly and effectively exposing a great deal of sly manoeuvring. One wonders how much used to be gotten away with that isn't now.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Meanwhile in the Corbyn Cinematic Universe, another tired 80s reboot in the offing. This time an 80s horror\comedy: Militant.

Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour

Some images of Militant members trying to join Labour in disguise has been obtained

Spoiler

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/123/352840552_7a9a0a6ec7_z.jpg?zz=1

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Meanwhile in the Corbyn Cinematic Universe, another tired 80s reboot in the offing. This time an 80s horror\comedy: Militant.

Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour

Some images of Militant members trying to join Labour in disguise has been obtained

Spoiler

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/123/352840552_7a9a0a6ec7_z.jpg?zz=1

 

[bendeus]

View attachment 90613

The hand-gesture, the expression on his face and the use of the word 'infiltration' all tell me that this would be better placed on the 'Labour Cumface' thread.

 

[YouSir]

Just back from my CLP meeting, or the pub, depending on your point of view. We won, we also won Lewisham where I used to live. Lots of enthusiasm, lots of talk about winning over jobs on ECs and all good. And a few pints, grand.

 

[JimW]

Won a vote at Stroud CLP with about 75% backing. Smith should just throw in the towel.

 

[timeforanother]

Back in the day, before Young Labour got suspended there were lots of lovely people who I didn't completely agree with, who knew exactly what they were after, and it was a bit different from the Militant party line; I don't know how the discussions went internally.

I bet the soft left loves Milala. Her speaches sounded a bit famililiar, she is part of the gang. Wish they just got a bit more flexible and inventive.

Jez and the rest of the movement aren't behaving like any of the 80s trot gangs now.. JC would look more like RCG in the past, not a threat, but supportive of groups that were oppressed without challenging their other beliefs.

I am so pleased that the JC gang are promoting party democracy rather than a line. I'd argue that we need to be able to stand up to Putin even if it costs a fortune. I think we need nuclear power to stop the sea levels rising. I'm looking forward to some friendly discussions, but the energy one is the one that is crucial. We need not to freeze to death and stll have a world that can support us.

The rubbish thrown at Ken is ridiculous, but there is no doubt that a lot of the middle east would like to destroy Israel and all Jews. Thank fuck for the Kurds for lookimg after the minorities. Curse Israel for doing the opposite, and the amount of cash they were given could have brokered a peace, even if it took time.

So yeah, there is antisemitism. Not like Mann says. I got beaten up as a kid for being a yid. I don't remember the board of deputies standing up for me. I am amazed that Israel hasn't realised it needs to to make peace and a lot more.

I may be off topic and ranting, but this thread has gotten off topic, and it's my birthday.

 

[two sheds]

I suggest that you review this exchange before posting again. Maybe you'll be able to flesh out why i should propose an alternative to something i haven't opposed. And all the other stuff. I do hope this is just an off day.

First, I’d understood that you’re against social democracy but instead favour violent revolution. That’s why I kept on about what’s the alternative (to voting Corbyn). If that’s wrong I apologize.

As to the rest, my original was:

I think the point about the flavour of government making relatively little effect on overall conditions was a good one. It was certainly true of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s, and also with Blair (and Brown) with the Third Way ending up being the same as the First Way.

Also the point he made about investment being quite high under Blair. I presume a lot of that was with from PFIs which were actually "privatization by the back door" for NHS and other infrastructure investments.

I was fairly clear - I was talking about the period of the Post War Social Contract up to the 70s and then neoliberalism since then. It seems to me that, during those two periods the flavour of government made less difference than the governments adhering to the PWSC itself and to neoliberalism.

But no:

So why on earth are you supporting corbyn?

Which I answered:

Because I think he's the nearest we'll get to regaining some of the ground made during the Post War Social Contract.

But again no, half a dozen posts from you pretending that I’d said governments and party policies don’t matter. But I hadn’t said that, had I? You're deliberately distorting what I said just so you can have a go. You were lying. And again - I've seen you accuse people of lying when it could have been an honest mistake so I’m happy to use the word with you.

I don’t enjoy this aggressive shit and find it quite disturbing which is why I’m generally polite to people. Last exchange we had you turned this into me being “passive aggressive”. Fair enough, I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

"Bad tempered stuff" is fucking Ironic coming from you. When I was on the site last time you started picking on things I said pretty well at random just so you could have a go. I even asked to you leave off with the contempt which seemed to have become your default position with me. Of course that made it worse.

So, back to what I understand:

During the 30 years of the PWSC – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power - we had full employment with generally rising sickness and unemployment benefits, free healthcare with NHS under public ownership, council housing and relatively low house prices and rents, essential industries and utilities under public control, free university education, wages rising pretty well in proportion to productivity, and the rich paid some tax.

During the 30 years since then under neoliberalism – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power – we’ve had high unemployment, consistent privatization of the NHS, dismantling council housing and and ever increasing house prices and rents, privatization of utilities and other essential industries, scrapping of grants, general attacks on unemployment and sickness benefits, and wages stagnating in proportion to productivity with money instead being siphoned off by the rich into tax havens.

I respect your opinion on politics and would be interested why you don’t agree – if my opinion is wrong then I’ll happily modify it. But if you get into your bullying mode where you pick on a small point and keep pushing it to pretend you've won the argument or your pretend-Socratic-argument-mode just to make the other person look small then fuck you. I’m going to respond in precisely the same ©Butchersapron way.

 

[butchersapron]

Meanwhile in the Corbyn Cinematic Universe, another tired 80s reboot in the offing. This time an 80s horror\comedy: Militant.

Leader of expelled leftwing group Militant expects readmission to Labour

Some images of Militant members trying to join Labour in disguise has been obtained

Spoiler

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/123/352840552_7a9a0a6ec7_z.jpg?zz=1

You do realise that all that's happened is that Watson put out a heavily elsewhere-sourced series of accusations of trottery in the labour party and the editor at the anti-corbyn asked what a trot is and what angle they could use to attack Corbyn. Someone said she should ask Toynbee what they are and their role in splitting the party in the 80s and helping them lose elections. It was then suggested someone google them to see if they're still going and then to ring Taafe and see if they could make him say something damaging to Corbyn. Taafe was mug enough to deliver. Don't worry - you're not going to be taken over by Socialists.

 

[two sheds]

There are as you know many alternatives. This is a much-used rhetorical device aimed at diverting criticism and making someone sound unduly utopian by changing subject to talk about things which are much more difficult to achieve than the "realistic approach" of merely forcing a vote and getting your man in Parliament.

No, it's a question as to what is your alternative to social democracy. I'm not convinced Corbyn will be successful but he needs to be given a try. I'm sorry if you feel that your political position sounds so stupid that you don't want to say what it is.

Which is essentially the same line of argument the Tories, media etc use about Labour's left. Pie in the sky, these socialists should work with reality, etc. You're right, it is rather embarrassing, not to mention tiresome, but in this case not for Butchers.

Well yes, it's also essentially the same line of argument if someone says that what you want to do won't work. It's a fairly reasonable question: what's the alternative?

 

[butchersapron]

No, it's a question as to what is your alternative to social democracy. I'm not convinced Corbyn will be successful but he needs to be given a try. I'm sorry if you feel that your political position sounds so stupid that you don't want to say what it is.



Well yes, it's also essentially the same line of argument if someone says that what you want to do won't work. It's a fairly reasonable question: what's the alternative?

No one was arguing that what you're supporting won't work. I didn't even touch on that in the slightest. You have totally misread what i was saying. That's why i suggested you review the exchange. It seems that you have but made the same misreading again. I'm not bothering with this while that's going on.

 

[killer b]

You do realise that all that's happened is that Watson put out a heavily elsewhere-sourced series of accusations of trottery in the labour party and the editor at the anti-corbyn asked what a trot is and what angle they could use to attack Corbyn. Someone said she should ask Toynbee what they are and their role in splitting the party in the 80s and helping them lose elections. It was then suggested someone google them to see if they're still going and then to ring Taafe and see if they could make him say something damaging to Corbyn. Taafe was mug enough to deliver. Don't worry - you're not going to be taken over by Socialists.

There was a piece on the BBC yesterday where they claimed the WRP has 3000 members.

 

[two sheds]

No one was arguing that what you're supporting won't work. I didn't even touch on that in the slightest. You have totally misread what i was saying. That's why i suggested you review the exchange. It seems that you have but made the same misreading again. I'm not bothering with this while that's going on.

I wasn't responding to you with that I was responding to Rob Ray.

If I've misunderstood *your* position (and my apology at the start of the post to you was incorrect) then say it in plain terms then without the sarcasm and nasty fucking digs that you normally make.

You're "not bothering" with the rest because you're an abusive bully who can't defend the shit he ladles out.

 

[butchersapron]

I wasn't responding to you with that I was responding to Rob Ray.

If I've misunderstood *your* position (and my apology at the start of the post to you was incorrect) then say it in plain terms then without the sarcasm and nasty fucking digs that you normally make.

You're "not bothering" with the rest because you're an abusive bully who can't defend the shit he ladles out.

One more time - review our exchange. I would ask anyone else whose baffled at this vitriol and abuse to, from the piece where i commented on the Gilbert stuff linked to.

 

[butchersapron]

There was a piece on the BBC yesterday where they claimed the WRP has 3000 members.

Jesus christ. Can you recall which program?

 

[killer b]

it was in this, but the text has changed: What is a Trotskyist? - BBC News

 

[DotCommunist]

no mention of paper selling. Standards are slipping at the beeb.

 

[teuchter]

I wasn't responding to you with that I was responding to Rob Ray.

If I've misunderstood *your* position (and my apology at the start of the post to you was incorrect) then say it in plain terms then without the sarcasm and nasty fucking digs that you normally make.

You're "not bothering" with the rest because you're an abusive bully who can't defend the shit he ladles out.

To me, it seems reasonably clear what you were saying. And unclear exactly what BA is trying to argue about.

 

[butchersapron]

it was in this, but the text has changed: What is a Trotskyist? - BBC News

Old Wheels! Fantastic! He doesn't even get the CPGB right - they spent years trying to be allowed properly and legally into the Labour Party - not practicing entryism.

"Supporters of the Marxist newspaper Militant, they underwent intensive training in Trotskyist ideology " - genius

 

[Idris2002]

It's true that members of Militant weren't allowed to masturbate, right?

 

[two sheds]

One more time - review our exchange. I would ask anyone else whose baffled at this to, from the piece where i commented on the Gilbert stuff linked to.

I had understood that the UK version of the PWSC was specifically aligned to Beveridge's"five giants on the road to reconstruction", and that Thatcher pioneered neoliberalism in the UK. Fair enough if that was happening worldwide - similar things were happening in the USA, and I'd assumed it had been exported to elsewhere because of them.

You were commenting on what Gilbert said, though. I'm making a narrower point which I summarized above:

During the 30 years of the PWSC – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power - we had full employment with generally rising sickness and unemployment benefits, free healthcare with NHS under public ownership, council housing and relatively low house prices and rents, essential industries and utilities under public control, free university education, wages rising pretty well in proportion to productivity, and the rich paid some tax.

During the 30 years since then under neoliberalism – irrespective of whether tories or labour were in power – we’ve had high unemployment, consistent privatization of the NHS, dismantling council housing and and ever increasing house prices and rents, privatization of utilities and other essential industries, scrapping of grants, general attacks on unemployment and sickness benefits, and wages stagnating in proportion to productivity with money instead being siphoned off by the rich into tax havens.

Where am I wrong on that?

 

[two sheds]

To me, it seems reasonably clear what you were saying. And unclear exactly what BA is trying to argue about.

Ta

Eta: I don't have BA's political understanding so the wider political point he's making may be quite correct, though.

 

[butchersapron]

Btw - this nonsense that Watson took from Crick claming this is how Corbyn supporters are being told to operate:

First, make the meetings boring. Flood the branches and constituency meetings with procedural requests, the minutes of the last meeting and process.
This turns off the faint-hearted. Those with better things to do - attend to their family, careers or community groups - simply no longer turn up.

Part two: make the event adversarial. Uncomradely questions to sitting councillors and the MP, challenging the chair's method and motive, defining the politics of the speaker before they have defined their own - all these things become the norm.
This behaviour basically reduces the attendance of the remaining sensible types. Then the meeting [is] ours to control.

Now for the piece de resistance. Once the troublesome moderates - organised or otherwise - are out of the way, motions and debates on policy and political positions will commence. Each will pass almost by acclaim.

No need for speeches against. If there is, allow it to be taken by the pantomime villain from the rump of 'Labour right' attending membership.

From here on it will be easy and the minutes often reflect the result of debates as 'unanimous'.Subsequent speeches at Labour gatherings - Labour party conference and the like - will then be narrated with how much support they got at constituency Labour party level.

...does not appear in the recently republished edition of Militant - the one with Watson's comments on the cover. I wonder if that is because it was Crick's tendentious and hostile summing up of something he didn't understand rather than a factually correct document - and as such not really re-publishable? Maybe Watson knowa why it wasn't included - was it on grounds of inaccuracy? After all it still included Watson accepting money from Derek Hatton.

 

[two sheds]

One of the things I was concerned about going to Labour CLP meetings was if the first 15 minutes were taken up with boring reading of the minutes. I was quite encouraged when I received a summary of the previous Momentum meeting's minutes by e-mail.

I do wonder whether the Blairite CLPers will try to do exactly this and make the meetings ultra-boring to discourage the new members. At least if they do I can now accuse them of being Trotskyites