Labour resignations

[rendelharris]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> yes, yes.. Regular missiles not nuclear ones. I

> remember. Just swap one for the other and hey

> presto. Like having a new exhaust.

>

> Woolly, harebrained, uncosted nonsense.

Sorry *Bob" but it's perfectly possible to exchange warheads between conventional and nuclear ones on the same missile - the US has done it for years with Cruise missiles and the US Navy - those woolly harebrained liberals - are currently developing a conventional warhead for Trident.

Notice you performed the usual rightist trick of, when proved wrong (for you repeated, did you not, the press myth that Corbyn wanted to send the subs to sea without missiles?), simply ignoring it and trying an attack from a different angle.

[Sue]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

The desire of the press in this country

> to ridicule anyone on the left, with outright lies

> if necessary, is breathtaking.

Yes

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Certainly looks as though it was subjected to a

> hefty dose of media spin! So yeah maybe I got the

> wrong end of the stick on that one.

>

> Still don't agree with him though - it's not a

> sexual discrimination issue as such.

I think it is

It's indirect sexual discrimination because a particular group of people (women) are less likely to be able to take part than another particular group of people (men).

However whether after-work drinks would strictly count legally could be doubtful, if it was wholly informal and not organised by the company. Not sure about that.

[*Bob*]

No, I knew he said conventional missiles. I should have said Trident submarines without any Trident missiles. My mistake.

The point remains. The Trident programme exists to fulfil the role of a nuclear deterrent, whatever the extra roles it can also accomplish might be, such as fitting with conventional weapons. 'Committing to Trident' without the nuclear missiles - to save jobs .. pointless nonsense.

Interesting that I am a 'rightist'?

I'm just looking for a centre left opposition with a sound fiscal policy and broad appeal that might have a hope in hell of actually putting the brakes on another 15 years or Conservative government.

[Blah Blah]

Then why focus on Trident Bob (we are never going to actually use it anyway)? How about some of the things John McDonell has said on economics instead? Because I don't hear anything meaningful from the Tories about increasingly pay, improving working conditions, resolving housing issues and addressing inequality - nothing at all. I do however hear plenty coming from this Labour leadership.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The trident idea was a bit silly IMO, although to be fair, it was only floated as a *possible* alternative to the binary choice of renew as is, or scrap completely. The party rejected the idea following a defence review. It should be possibly to discuss the options openly.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am not a Corynista by the way, but I think it's clear that the media have done an absolute hatchet job on him, which is not conducive to a healthy political discourse. The media in this country is often pretty corrosive to our democracy. Cameron's failure to implement the recommendations of the Leveson enquiry was one of the many times he demonstrated his lack of courage.

[Otta]

I think the media have treated him very poorly. But equally. seeing rendel try to defend the submarine "idea" is just funny. And seeing the use of the word "rightist" to describe someone that has just pointed out that a Corbyn idea was stupid, is typical.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[maxxi]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting that I am a 'rightist'?

>

> I'm just looking for a centre left opposition with

> a sound fiscal policy and broad appeal that might

> have a hope in hell of actually putting the brakes

> on another 15 years or Conservative government.

Splitters!

[????]

Is Corbyn competent?

Is Corbyn a hypocrite?

Is Corbyn pursuing an outdated ideology?

Is Corbyn who I'd want in charge of this country's defences?

Is corbyn who I'd want in charge of this country's economy?

Is Corbyn ruled by Dogma?

Are Corbyn's friends and allies decent people who'd I'd trust?

Is Corbyn flexible?

Is Corbyn honest about his long term goals for this country?

The answers to all of these questions are clear cut to me and all ones that mean I NEVER want him as Prime Minister.

But I'm just a 'rightist' dupe of the MMS media blah, blah, blah

I just hope the Labour Party refinds its sanity - not hopeful

PS my use of blah blah blah was not a reference to the poster of the same name :)

[Earl Aelfheah]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm just looking for a centre left opposition with

> a sound fiscal policy and broad appeal that might

> have a hope in hell of actually putting the brakes

> on another 15 years or Conservative government.

Yeah, I think this is what a lot of us would like to see. Join the Labour party would be my advice (if you haven't already). It's a membership organisation and so it's no good sitting on the sidelines complaining about it's direction. At the moment, Corbyn represents the views of the majority of the parties members. Like it or not, that's how it should be, which is why I think the PLP really has no choice but to get behind him for now and try to help steer the ship as best they can. Those who want to see Labour move to a different position, should do something about it by joining the party and adding their voice to the debate. If Labour do get wiped out at the next election, there will be another opportunity to influence things.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't agree that Labour is particularly dogmatic. This is a criticism which is constantly leveled at 'the left', but actually there are many more ideologues on the right, who would happily privatise everything, regardless of outcomes or evidence. The Conservatives have often ignored evidence when it comes to public policy, in areas such as drugs policy, criminal justice, housing, education and many others - look at their policy on grammars for example.

Labour have always called for a mixed economy and the last Labour government did a lot (not always successfully) to bring the private sector in to delivering public services. As Jeremy (ED Jerermy, not Corbyn) said earlier in the thread, it should always be about what produces the best outcomes and the best value for money.

The level of debate has become so, so poor recently and a lot of it is the influence of the media which really has cheapened the political discourse in this country. The reason we have glib soundbites ('brexit means brexit') and spin doctors, is because politicians are placed in a total straight jacket by reporters. Journalists have an essential role to play in a health democracy, holding politicians to account, but it certainly feels to me that there is something quite dysfunctional going on at the moment, in politics and in the media.

[Jeremy]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's indirect sexual discrimination because a

> particular group of people (women) are less likely

> to be able to take part than another particular

> group of people (men).

No... I can agree it disadvantages single parents (as someone pointed out earlier). But for two-parent families, childcare duties are their own business. There's no reason it needs to be the mother who leaves work at 5pm to look after the kids.

[rendelharris]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the media have treated him very poorly.

> But equally. seeing rendel try to defend the

> submarine "idea" is just funny. And seeing the use

> of the word "rightist" to describe someone that

> has just pointed out that a Corbyn idea was

> stupid, is typical.

I wasn't particularly trying to defend the Trident idea - I think they're a waste of money with nuclear or conventional arms - but pointing out to *Bob* that he'd fallen for the press lie that Corbyn wanted to send the subs out without any missiles at all; we were discussing the way the press turns everything Corbyn says into something else - Corbyn wants to ban afterwork drinks, Corbyn wants to send the subs out without missiles...

*Bob* wrote: "And then of course there were the Trident submarines without any missiles on them. However, I expect this was just a small sliver of a well thought-through and multi-faceted defence policy which had been leapt upon and quoted out of context by THE EVIL MEEJA..." I was pointing out that yes, it was not only quoted out of context by the media but in fact they made up downright lies about it.

However, *Bob*, I shouldn't have made that assumption about your political views and I apologise. Attack Corbyn all you like - I'm no great fan - but attack him on what he has actually said, not what the media has told you he said, as they're often two completely different things.

[*Bob*]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> .. Trident (we are never going

> to actually use it anyway)?

That's the idea. That's how it's meant to work, isn't it?

It's not really a fixation on Trident - it's just one example of how woolly thinking (sorry, 'ideas') translate into absurdly impractical things coming out of mouths of grown men who should know better.

Take an hugely expensive programme engineered and designed to fulfil one principle role, remove that role it was designed for, but keep it anyway.

The mechanisms of how this opposition leadership function are beyond belief! Just last night, the shadow defence dude has a key bit of his speech altered - (Trident again, topically) - incredibly - just before he stands up to give his speech. The information comes via a post-it note (ironically, from Milne in 'communications'). Shadow Defence is then reported as punching a wall a wall and smashing his phone up. Way to go guys.

The Meeja have not been kind, on that I think everyone can agree.

But the media should be the tail, not the dog. Look at what the dog is doing and it's no wonder the tail is rampant.

[*Bob*]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, *Bob*, I shouldn't have made that

> assumption about your political views and I

> apologise.

The cruellest thing about this whole shambolic situation is that under different circumstances, 80% of the people arguing on this thread against each other would be be on the same political side.

[DaveR]

"The cruellest thing about this whole shambolic situation is that under different circumstances, 80% of the people arguing on this thread against each other would be be on the same political side"

....and you have to suspect that this is representative of what's going on in the country as a whole. Lots of people whose natural inclination is to vote Labour arguing with each other about (broadly) whether JC is nuts or a victim of media conspiracy, while the millions of people who voted Tory at the last election (and perhaps most particularly those who switched from Lib Dem) are, at best, untouched by the whole debate, and at worst are saying to themselves "well at least I won't have to agonize about who I vote for next time".

[Earl Aelfheah]

The Labour party is in a bad place, but it can come back. For now, I agree with almost everything in this article about what should be happening next: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-six-things-to-avoid-electoral-armageddon-a7328736.html - sorry for posting it again, but it's worth reading honest :-)

Also, join the Labour party. If you?re generally to the left of the Conservatives, join the party so that you can add to the number of pragmatic voices. Those who want to influence the future direction of Labour need to be on the inside.

[Earl Aelfheah]

...even if you're not sure you're going to vote Labour under Corbyn - if you generally support Labour and want to influence it's direction - join.

[Otta]

And let's not forget, Smith (who I think we can all agree, is a bit shit) managed to get nearly 40% of the vote. So although Corbyn's win was impressive, 4 in 10 voted to get him out (I am quite confident that most Smith voters were voting "anyone but Corbyn" rather than FOR Smith).

There is still some sanity within the party.

[Blah Blah]

There is some truth on that Dave and to touch on what Bob said about changes to Clive Lewis's speech. This is exactly why the shadow cabinet resigned. Corbyn thinks it perfectly ok to change what is agreed at the last minute without discussion with the cabinet minister involved. He did a similar thing to the former transport minister at a press conference ffs. So much for the words about changing how he runs his office. Seamus Milne is a problem - there is no question of that. Clive Lewis is who I would like to see lead the party. I think he is everything the public would like. I told him that at conference over the weekend as well. It's also worth pointing out that even the conference hall wasn't well attended at the weekend either and the market area, usually full of stalls from party sponsors, is half empty as well - a clear sign that party donations have slipped away too.

[Blah Blah]

Indeed Otta. And that 40% can not be ignored. There is one key difference though. Corbyn this time won in all three areas, membership, affiliates registered supporters. Last time, he failed to get to 51% amongst the membership.

Completely agree re: joining the Labour party though. Momentum only has 18,000 members, but they are ALL activists. It should be easy for Labour First to match that. It won;t be enough to just join the party though. Members need to go to their branch meetings and get involved with their CLPs. This is what Momentum is now seeking to exploit.

[Jeremy]

I can see both Sadiq and Chuka throwing their hats into the ring after the next GE. Corbyn will be an old man in 2025.

[red devil]

Indeed Jeremy, and you don't need the media to spin that fact...