Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Mr Moose]

the more meaningless the speech the more points you gain

A sycophantic intervention at PMQs = an assist.

 

[Pickman's model]

A sycophantic intervention at PMQs = an assist.

just so

 

[redsquirrel]

Because we are just chatting on the internet.

You've spent two years arguing that LP need to remove Corbyn to go left (and then arguing for neo-liberal politics). You've put all your (a)politics in the LP basket without even having the wherewithal to commit to them.

I don't agree with LP members on U75 but they are committing to something.

 

[Pickman's model]

You've spent two years arguing that LP need to remove Corbyn to go left (and then arguing for neo-liberal politics). You've put all your (a)politics in the LP basket without even having the wherewithal to commit to them.

I don't agree with LP members on U75 but they are committing to something.

yeh endless teasing

 

[Mr Moose]

You've spent two years arguing that LP need to remove Corbyn to go left (and then arguing for neo-liberal politics). You've put all your (a)politics in the LP basket without even having the wherewithal to commit to them.

I don't agree with LP members on U75 but they are committing to something.

As a Labour Party voter I’ve got sufficient stake to chat about it on a message forum, not that not being one precludes anyone from having a view.

It’s a bit disingenuous to say I argue for neoliberal politics like I work for the Adam Smith institute or something. I might as well say you are pro the bourgeois state because you travel on the roads or live in a house. There is always going to be a debate about what can be done within the system, within a Worldwide system.

I would love it if Corbyn won. Absolutely love it. The genuinely positive things Labour could do from its programme. The faces of all those Tory boys and free market women who commentate on the paper reviews. The slapped arse look on the face of all the centrists.

But, at this moment, I regretfully doubt this fantasy will come to pass. I don’t say that to right wing people, I say that here

 

[Pickman's model]

I might as well say you are pro the bourgeois state because you travel on the roads or live in a house.

*klaxon*

analogy fail.

 

[cantsin]

This all a bit tragic and tawdry isn't it? The labour wheel is going to turn regardless of whether you put your shoulder to it. Why do this? Why not, knowing this, use the opp to attack labour for it's councils austerity impositions, it's lack of fightback on this etc?

just fyi, look at the likes of Beth Redmond / Manc Mom / us / others : will always attack Labour gentrifying councils on soc media ( I know that's not same as IRL, but Beth and crew would deffo do so at council meetings etc I'd guess - certainly vocal this week vs Manc Council )
- none of us feel any alignment / connection to zombie blairite councils, and are pissed off with how slow the progress has been in gettng rid of them

 

[butchersapron]

That's exactly what was said under kinnock/smith/blair/brown - there's slow and there's slow...

 

[Mr Moose]

*klaxon*

analogy fail.

Yeah maybe. Squirrel argues that if you say anything like Labour must not tank the economy it means you must want austerity to continue. There are other redistributive ways one must hope.

But I accept that there is (until the glorious day) an economy that has real impacts. We cannot but rely on it, even revolutionaries. And yes of course the way that economy operates is also going to be in direct opposition to socialist aims.

 

[cantsin]

That's exactly what was said under kinnock/smith/blair/brown - there's slow and there's slow...

agreed...and it's getting slower tbh, Haringey seems a long time ago

 

[Mr Moose]

That's exactly what was said under kinnock/smith/blair/brown - there's slow and there's slow...

So why did you reject criticisms of Ed? What was the difference?

 

[butchersapron]

agreed...and it's getting slower tbh, Haringey seems a long time ago

You wouldn't have swallowed that line from a labour member 5 years ago, that they oppose them but...would you? You'd likely argue that this is what labour is set up to do and so it's no surprise. Given that nothing has changed then i can't see why i should swallow it today.

 

[butchersapron]

So why did you reject criticisms of Ed? What was the difference?

I didn't, i forgot about him.

About 'ed'.

 

[cantsin]

You wouldn't have swallowed that line from a labour member 5 years ago, that they oppose them but...would you? You'd likely argue that this is what labour is set up to do and so it's no surprise. Given that nothing has changed then i can't see why i should swallow it today.

not expecting you to / not sure how much I do to be brutally honest

 

[redsquirrel]

It’s a bit disingenuous to say I argue for neoliberal politics like I work for the Adam Smith institute or something. I might as well say you are pro the bourgeois state because you travel on the roads or live in a house. There is always going to be a debate about what can be done within the system, within a Worldwide system.

You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)

Nationalisation came out of hard times and war. There is not the money to renationalise what has been sold off and why do that? Unless you change the law and seize assets it would be bumper pay out day for the shareholders.

I haven't read this yet, but I believe it may be more about state owned alternatives, which would be great. Build new energy companies for example, to provide better, greener deals and build assets for the people. I would say a swift 'fuck you' to any privatised offering I could for the same or subsidised cost.

You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs

. Better to ensure people have the means to live and let them get on with living creative lives rather than create a state controlled nightmare.

Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party.

Like Toynbee you seem to think that whatever political actions you take, whatever political views you hold is irrelevant because still in your heart of hearts you want Corbyn to win. You are not even honest with yourself.

 

[Pickman's model]

You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)

You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs
Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party.

Like Toynbee you seem to think that whatever political actions you take, whatever political views you hold is irrelevant because still in your heart of hearts you want Corbyn to win. You are not even honest with yourself.

It's wicked to mock the afflicted

 

[Mr Moose]

You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)

You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs
Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party.

Like Toynbee you seem to think that whatever political actions you take, whatever political views you hold is irrelevant because still in your heart of hearts you want Corbyn to win. You are not even honest with yourself.

What a bizarre person you are, trawling through the archives to find stuff to use out of context.

My point about nationalisation was not that it is wrong, I like it, but that giving out a massive payday to shareholders should not be Labour’s immediate priority.

The other response was in response to your fatuous suggestion that a nationalisation where workers build aircraft wings and then dismantle them would be laudable. That makes you one weird anarchist if your dream is state regulated drudgery without even the satisfaction of creation. I can only imagine you have very little experience of any creative or skilled work. You have no concept of its satisfaction.

Stop this infantile point scoring.

 

[brogdale]

Stop this infantile point scoring.

What will we do with our time, then?

 

[redsquirrel]

What a bizarre person you are, trawling through the archives to find stuff to use out of context.

My point about nationalisation was not that it is wrong, I like it, but that giving out a massive payday to shareholders should not be Labour’s immediate priority.

The other response was in response to your fatuous suggestion that a nationalisation where workers build aircraft wings and then dismantle them would be laudable. That makes you one weird anarchist if your dream is state regulated drudgery without even the satisfaction of creation. I can only imagine you have very little experience of any creative or skilled work. You have no concept of its satisfaction.

Nothing out of context, it's all in the context of your incoherent "there is no alternative' politics.

You don't even understand how mainstream the idea of governments keeping workers in employment is. Never mind that British Steel is to close we don't want the government to intervene and stop the satisfaction of creation that it's ex-employees might have -we want to free up the peoples creativity - the language and ideology of the New Labour cunt.

Oh Lord give me the mildest of social democracies only not yet!

 

[Mr Moose]

Nothing out of context, it's all in the context of your incoherent "there is no alternative' politics.

You don't even understand how mainstream the idea of governments keeping workers in employment is. Never mind that British Steel is to close we don't want the government to intervene and stop the satisfaction of creation that it's ex-employees might have -we want to free up the peoples creativity - the language and ideology of the New Labour cunt.

Oh Lord give me the mildest of social democracies only not yet!

No one is saying put people out of their jobs. Who wouldn’t want to support British Steel? You are Mr Strawman.

This is a pointless argument. If I have given the impression that everything needs a business case to support it, I don’t. I agree the logic of the market can’t be sovereign, must be resisted. You can believe that or not. As you seem to prefer to have your piss endlessly boiled so you can be self-righteous, I expect you won’t.

However, your idea of deliberately putting people to pointless work is patronising, repressive and defeatist. There is important stuff to build and to repair. If we are in the position to make highly specialist things to simply break up then let’s plan the things we need.

 

[teuchter]

You've specifically argued against even even mild social democracy - against nationalisation (and again here)

You even opposed state intervention in stopping people losing their jobs
Your options put you well to the right of the post-war Tory party.

Like Toynbee you seem to think that whatever political actions you take, whatever political views you hold is irrelevant because still in your heart of hearts you want Corbyn to win. You are not even honest with yourself.

I've gone back and read those links and think you're misrepresenting Mr Moose.

 

[redsquirrel]

Coming from a LD defender liberal wanker like you I think that says everything.

 

[Pickman's model]

Coming from a LD defender liberal wanker like you I think that says everything.

Not even the LibDems deserve a supporter like teuchter

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've gone back and read those links and think you're misrepresenting Mr Moose.

I don't believe you.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Presuming the EU a) will 'allow' an extension until 31/1/20 b) they will want an iron commitment to a GE to take place within the extension timeframe and c) Johnson has already named a date then this is desperate evasion stuff from Labour. They'd be better sticking to the 'it's too cold and dark' to have an election in December line imho. It's also pathetic but at least it is true to say it is likely to be cold and dark in the winter.

Labour calls for 'explicit commitment' on no deal before election
Here’s Diane Abbott again, this time speaking to the BBC’s Today programme. She said that Labour “was definitely up for an election”, but that they would need “an explicit commitment” to rule out a no-deal Brexit – which could include legislation in parliament – if it were to back an election.


BBC Radio 4 Today

✔@BBCr4today

"The Labour Party is definitely up for an election."

But it depends on what kind of delay the EU offers and on an "explicit commitment" to rule out a no-deal Brexit says shadow home sec @HackneyAbbott #r4today https://bbc.in/32Msrqv

 

[Dogsauce]

I think one of the Tory tactics is to throw out stuff like this election proposal to wrongfoot Labour, make them look chaotic or indecisive, as that’s more electorally damaging than any policy issue. Remember it was the tories hopelessly divided and polling in the teens just a few months ago, they’ve somehow turned this round. Labour needs to be more prepared and have a game plan for any likely government moves, it’s not like this was unpredictable.

 

[MrSki]

At least when the election is called then the BBC will have to be a bit more careful in its bias.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I see Margaret Hodge has survived her show trial.

 

[Mr Moose]

I see Margaret Hodge has survived her show trial.

Unfortunately so.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I see Margaret Hodge has survived her show trial.

Wasn't much of a show trial then?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice