I'm certainly not looking forward to 5 yrs of tories. But the last 5 yrs have done massive harm to the liberal party. That cant be good.
My concern is that a party in PR will either sell out or end up bringing government to a grinding halt.
Off Topic Jeremy Corbyn
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I'm certainly not looking forward to 5 yrs of tories. But the last 5 yrs have done massive harm to the liberal party. That cant be good.
My concern is that a party in PR will either sell out or end up bringing government to a grinding halt.
Never called myself Socialist (again, the quote is from Shankly). I'm a Labourite - get as much from the Capitalist system as possible. What the Labour party was actually set up to do: 'Socialism' and 'Trotskyism', romantic notions as they are to lower VIth form rebels, belong in the Keir Hardie's Cap section of the party's history.
I voted for Burnham last time through my then union (TSSA). I was happy with Ed Milliband - as long as it wasn't his Mandelsohn loving, Murdoch- fawning brother David. Now I'm in the RMT (unaffiliated) but I joined the Labour Party when Red Ed stood up to Murdoch. I'll vote again for Burnham, but I'd prefer Corbyn to, say, Kendall as she's another of Murdoch's flying monkeys. May as well be Corbyn, as we're not getting back in for a generation anyway.
Just seen Dan Hodges, that modern day Woodrow Wyatt - a Trojan Rat who writes for the Telegraph and is the unofficial mouthpiece for the Blair/Murdoch wing of the Conservative Lite Party, deriding Corbyn and the 'fools' supporting him, and I can't help feeling that here we are back where we were five years ago when Ed was elected. And I will support Corbyn for that reason, if he get's elected over my choice Burnham, if for no better reason than I'd rather have a Labour person at the helm than an homogenous Murdoch droid if we're not going to win anyway.
Btw, I must add that not once have I been canvassed or asked my opinion before now, so where they're getting these polls from I don't know, and apart from a letter from all four candidates I still haven't received my ballot papers - and the election starts today!
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...all-jeremy-corbyn-an-antisemite-10458261.html
Is Jeremy Corbyn the enemy of Israel and British Jews? That is what the The Jewish Chronicle, some MPs and various sections of the media would have us believe. It is an accusation that is both absurd and menacing. The right, Blairites and hard Zionists have formed the most unholy of alliances to slay the reputation of the next likely leader of the Labour Party. They thought he was a bit-part player, but he has unexpectedly became the front-runner; now every political trick in the book is being used in an attempt bring him down. I hope honest democrats see through the contemptible tactics. If Corbyn is an anti-Semite, I am a white supremacist.
As it happens, I do not think the left-wing MP can lead Labour to victory in 2020, despite agreeing wholly with his anti-austerity drive, his position on the Iraq war, and his social democratic vision. But cumulative decades of Thatcherism and Blairism have turned millions of Brits into self-serving individuals – more like middle-class Americans than egalitarian Scandinavians. Corbyn doesn’t get that, and he would not receive my leadership vote if I were part of that process. But I will defend the man forcefully against the calumny and defamation now being heaped upon him.
What evidence have his detractors produced to “prove” that he is anti-Semitic? That he has appeared on Press TV, the Iranian-funded station? Well, until late 2009, the Telegraph journalist Andrew Gilligan presented a fortnightly programme on that channel. Is Gilligan therefore also a Jew-hater? Of course not. Next: Corbyn shared a platform with Carlos Latuff, the Brazilian-Arab cartoonist who condemned Israel’s oppressive policies in Palestine.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has declared Latuff anti-Semitic but the Jewish daily Forward claims he is a “furious” critic of the state of Israel, not an anti-Semite. So no consensus there. As for sharing spaces: many of us speak at conferences where some speakers turn out to have nasty views about various ethnic and religious groups. That is the complex and argumentative world we live in. To talk to those we violently disagree with is surely an obligation.
Some of the people Corbyn has been closest to are conscientious and ethical British Jews. The late Mike Marqusee, a Marxist, New York secular Jew who migrated to the UK, was his friend. So, too, is Ken Loach, a liberal British Jew and fierce defender of Palestinian rights. There are others, dismissed by Zionists as “self-haters” because they reject blind loyalty to Israel.
Two of Corbyn’s weaknesses are his tendency for unchecked inclusiveness, and his naivety. His strength is his ability to take the long view. In the past, he refused to condemn the IRA – now some of them are in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He got to know Tamil Tigers, and South American rebels during the era of vicious dictatorships – as did Ken Livingstone and others. So what? Those on the right have their own relationships with unspeakable types.
The most livid reactions, as ever, are on Twitter. Liz Kendall said at a meeting organised by Corbyn that Ed Miliband and Labour should not have recognised the Palestinian state – a Zionist position. This is one reason why I think Kendall should categorically not lead the Labour Party. Like Tony Blair, she defends the indefensible. However, instead of fair criticism, she was subjected to foul, misogynist abuse by some of Corbyn’s loonier supporters. That, according to his detractors, is Corbyn’s fault. Some Tory tweeters are racist – so I suppose the PM is now personally to blame for that, too?
But the overreactions of some extreme Zionists these days is tantamount to an attempt to censor all criticism of Israel’s political and military tactics. And the position has hardened since British public opinion has softened towards Palestinians. The last cruel demolition of Gaza played badly for Israel. So here is the new claim being put about assertively: those who want to destroy Jewry hide behind the Palestinian cause. They are right, up to a point. Veiled anti-Semitism is around us, and most of all on university campuses, where Palestine is a burning issue and convenient alibi. Attacks on Jewish Europeans are also rising.
Just as pernicious is the way Zionists use the charge of anti-Semitism to block probes into Israel’s oppressive practices, its weaponry, and its influence in Western parliaments. Some public intellectuals and politicians – who should have some understanding of nuance – have become propagandists for Israel, be the country’s actions right or wrong. They use images of Nazism and excruciating memories to whip up fears of a new horror, an impending extermination of the plucky nation by its cruel colonial neighbours. I myself have been subjected to such intimidation and branded an anti-Semite over the years. More such muck will be thrown at me when this column appears.
Most depressing of all is the collusion between the powerful right and Zionists. They seem determined to crush all alternatives to neoliberal economics and Western hegemony. Jewish lawyers, activists, entrepreneurs and thinkers in South Africa, the UK, Europe and US have fought so long for justice, equality and progressive politics. It gets harder and harder for them to carry on that noble tradition. Ed Miliband was one of them and look what sections of the media did to him.
As the forces of darkness turn on Corbyn, the leadership contest continues its descent into a passion play. Yesterday, Gordon Brown dealt a fresh blow to the next likely leader of the party – though he did not have the guts even to name his adversary. Fair enough. That’s politics. But the accusation of anti-Semitism is not. The other contenders so detest the left-winger that they allow this stain to spread. This is how low Labour has sunk.
__________________________
So the right (including labour right - insane there is actually a labour right) paint him as Anti semitic and a socialist looney
"Antishemitushm!!!"
Is Jeremy Corbyn the enemy of Israel and British Jews? That is what the The Jewish Chronicle, some MPs and various sections of the media would have us believe. It is an accusation that is both absurd and menacing. The right, Blairites and hard Zionists have formed the most unholy of alliances to slay the reputation of the next likely leader of the Labour Party. They thought he was a bit-part player, but he has unexpectedly became the front-runner; now every political trick in the book is being used in an attempt bring him down. I hope honest democrats see through the contemptible tactics. If Corbyn is an anti-Semite, I am a white supremacist.
As it happens, I do not think the left-wing MP can lead Labour to victory in 2020, despite agreeing wholly with his anti-austerity drive, his position on the Iraq war, and his social democratic vision. But cumulative decades of Thatcherism and Blairism have turned millions of Brits into self-serving individuals – more like middle-class Americans than egalitarian Scandinavians. Corbyn doesn’t get that, and he would not receive my leadership vote if I were part of that process. But I will defend the man forcefully against the calumny and defamation now being heaped upon him.
What evidence have his detractors produced to “prove” that he is anti-Semitic? That he has appeared on Press TV, the Iranian-funded station? Well, until late 2009, the Telegraph journalist Andrew Gilligan presented a fortnightly programme on that channel. Is Gilligan therefore also a Jew-hater? Of course not. Next: Corbyn shared a platform with Carlos Latuff, the Brazilian-Arab cartoonist who condemned Israel’s oppressive policies in Palestine.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has declared Latuff anti-Semitic but the Jewish daily Forward claims he is a “furious” critic of the state of Israel, not an anti-Semite. So no consensus there. As for sharing spaces: many of us speak at conferences where some speakers turn out to have nasty views about various ethnic and religious groups. That is the complex and argumentative world we live in. To talk to those we violently disagree with is surely an obligation.
Some of the people Corbyn has been closest to are conscientious and ethical British Jews. The late Mike Marqusee, a Marxist, New York secular Jew who migrated to the UK, was his friend. So, too, is Ken Loach, a liberal British Jew and fierce defender of Palestinian rights. There are others, dismissed by Zionists as “self-haters” because they reject blind loyalty to Israel.
-
You must log in or register to see images
Two of Corbyn’s weaknesses are his tendency for unchecked inclusiveness, and his naivety. His strength is his ability to take the long view. In the past, he refused to condemn the IRA – now some of them are in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He got to know Tamil Tigers, and South American rebels during the era of vicious dictatorships – as did Ken Livingstone and others. So what? Those on the right have their own relationships with unspeakable types.
The most livid reactions, as ever, are on Twitter. Liz Kendall said at a meeting organised by Corbyn that Ed Miliband and Labour should not have recognised the Palestinian state – a Zionist position. This is one reason why I think Kendall should categorically not lead the Labour Party. Like Tony Blair, she defends the indefensible. However, instead of fair criticism, she was subjected to foul, misogynist abuse by some of Corbyn’s loonier supporters. That, according to his detractors, is Corbyn’s fault. Some Tory tweeters are racist – so I suppose the PM is now personally to blame for that, too?
But the overreactions of some extreme Zionists these days is tantamount to an attempt to censor all criticism of Israel’s political and military tactics. And the position has hardened since British public opinion has softened towards Palestinians. The last cruel demolition of Gaza played badly for Israel. So here is the new claim being put about assertively: those who want to destroy Jewry hide behind the Palestinian cause. They are right, up to a point. Veiled anti-Semitism is around us, and most of all on university campuses, where Palestine is a burning issue and convenient alibi. Attacks on Jewish Europeans are also rising.
Just as pernicious is the way Zionists use the charge of anti-Semitism to block probes into Israel’s oppressive practices, its weaponry, and its influence in Western parliaments. Some public intellectuals and politicians – who should have some understanding of nuance – have become propagandists for Israel, be the country’s actions right or wrong. They use images of Nazism and excruciating memories to whip up fears of a new horror, an impending extermination of the plucky nation by its cruel colonial neighbours. I myself have been subjected to such intimidation and branded an anti-Semite over the years. More such muck will be thrown at me when this column appears.
Most depressing of all is the collusion between the powerful right and Zionists. They seem determined to crush all alternatives to neoliberal economics and Western hegemony. Jewish lawyers, activists, entrepreneurs and thinkers in South Africa, the UK, Europe and US have fought so long for justice, equality and progressive politics. It gets harder and harder for them to carry on that noble tradition. Ed Miliband was one of them and look what sections of the media did to him.
As the forces of darkness turn on Corbyn, the leadership contest continues its descent into a passion play. Yesterday, Gordon Brown dealt a fresh blow to the next likely leader of the party – though he did not have the guts even to name his adversary. Fair enough. That’s politics. But the accusation of anti-Semitism is not. The other contenders so detest the left-winger that they allow this stain to spread. This is how low Labour has sunk.
__________________________
So the right (including labour right - insane there is actually a labour right) paint him as Anti semitic and a socialist looney
"Antishemitushm!!!"
Why use 5 words when a million will do, eh Sisu
This is what happens whenever someone genuinely wants to address the israel-palestine conflict in a balanced and conciliatary way. They get labelled a terrorist loving ant-semite. Ignore the fact there's actually an objective message in what Corbyn is saying and in what he's trying to achieve
This is what happens whenever someone genuinely wants to address the israel-palestine conflict in a balanced and conciliatary way. They get labelled a terrorist loving ant-semite. Ignore the fact there's actually an objective message in what Corbyn is saying and in what he's trying to achieve
Why use 5 words when a million will do, eh Sisu
This is what happens whenever someone genuinely wants to address the israel-palestine conflict in a balanced and conciliatary way. They get labelled a terrorist loving ant-semite. Ignore the fact there's actually an objective message in what Corbyn is saying and in what he's trying to achieve
I only wrote one sentence, the rest was the indo article you dummy
Why use 5 words when a million will do, eh Sisu
This is what happens whenever someone genuinely wants to address the israel-palestine conflict in a balanced and conciliatary way. They get labelled a terrorist loving ant-semite. Ignore the fact there's actually an objective message in what Corbyn is saying and in what he's trying to achieve
Was listening to 5 Live with Steven Nolan a week ago when i was on nights. creaming himself on how he'd forced Corbyn to turn off his phone on a train in the end after several attempts by nolan to get him to unnequivocally condemn all historic IRA violence without mentioning any British atrocities. Begs the question - can the Peace process and NI ever move on to whatever future is democratically agreed if either side won't let go of grudges against them. Not to say the victims of the Troubles (including those on the mainland) shouldn't be remembered, but the future has just got to have a cut-off point about levelling the scores if there is to be a future at all.
Surely it's progress that McGuiness is representing his people and agitating for a united Ireland within a democratic institute that didn't exist 50 years ago? FFS, it was actually the thatcher government under Whitelaw that first opened the channels of communication with the IRA, recognising that there had to be some sort of dialogue eventually. And so it will be if there is ever to be any sort of peace in the Middle East.
I'd go further and say it's deliberate by some. The middle-east has a lot of players and it serves them well to keep the status quo. Abbas and the PA are corrupt. Netanhyahu and his cronies are right wing extremists. There's no will on either side. The Americans and Western governments have vested interests in Israel and will never publicly and objectively hold them to account.
So that's all 3 major players with no impetus for change. IF there was a real will on any ONE side it wouldn't take long to fnd a solution. The closest we came to it was with Yitzak Rabin (a real peacemaker) but his own people killed him.
The disingenuous nature of the west towards this is just the same as with Corbyn. The spin against Hamas is they don't recognise Israel and never will in their charter. Well that's just their fcking starting position. That doesn't mean you don't speak to them
But the truth is the Israelis and Americans are just using this as an excuse. Same with the demonisation of Iran. Ahmedinajad makes an innocuous comment about how Israel isn't legal and therefore should not appear on maps. That gets translated to "wiping Israel off the map" like he wants to nuke them. It doesn't occur to anyone that the whole fcking place is a major religious site - that's what the whole thing is being fought over - and that the very people they want to help ie. the palestinians, their friends Hamas etc live there. So why the hell would they nuke them? It's basically the same thinking as was against the Russains at the height of the cold war. It's all purposeful propoganda for the masses.BTW I'm not taking sides here. I have NO affliation to either side. I'm just highlighting how certain people will never think of the bigger picture... or simply don't want to... or simply aren't put in a position where they have to. That's what it took in Northern Ireland and South Africa. The Arabs and Israelis are just far too much of a **** though.
Is he likely to provide a suitable alternative or will he be just another weak labour leader?
One of many.
One of many.
What's your definition of 'weak'? Being Murdoch's glove-puppet for 10 years like Blair was isn't 'strong', it's just the free-market consensus allowing one of their own who wears a red tie a turn to carry out their will.
Jeremy Corbyn will set up a fund to help people on low incomes become Labour MPs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-low-incomes-become-labour-mps-10468820.html
Gettting working class people into government, no wonder the "establishment" including labour right, ****ing hate Corbyn
We can't have plebs mixing with ruling class folks now can we, that just will not do
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-low-incomes-become-labour-mps-10468820.html
Gettting working class people into government, no wonder the "establishment" including labour right, ****ing hate Corbyn
We can't have plebs mixing with ruling class folks now can we, that just will not do
There are people from both sides of the Troubles / NI conflict who are so embittered and narrow minded that they will never let it go. Even when they are dead their hatred will have been bred into their children for them to continue to not let the issue lie. The issue will never go away. Education is the best and probably only hope of ridding that place of both sides of sectarianism and of the pursuit of continued enlightenment and broadened minds, because at its core its a family/ancestral issue.
Like with nuclear bombs / weapons. You shouldn't forget they ever existed because that means we'd be more probable to go down that path again as ignorance would create the carte blanche to allow us to do that again. What needs to happen is you destroy every single warhead and you forget every ounce of information about how to make those weapons, totally erase it from existence but do not forget the weapons themselves ever. Forget the information and the means but not what nukes were capable of and the destruction and fear they caused. Unfortunately it's not so simple with religion and political ideology as all they are is information, rather than physical things, apart from bibles and manifestos and priests and paisleys.
Same with Israel / Palestine. Lots in common between the two situations.
Like with nuclear bombs / weapons. You shouldn't forget they ever existed because that means we'd be more probable to go down that path again as ignorance would create the carte blanche to allow us to do that again. What needs to happen is you destroy every single warhead and you forget every ounce of information about how to make those weapons, totally erase it from existence but do not forget the weapons themselves ever. Forget the information and the means but not what nukes were capable of and the destruction and fear they caused. Unfortunately it's not so simple with religion and political ideology as all they are is information, rather than physical things, apart from bibles and manifestos and priests and paisleys.
Same with Israel / Palestine. Lots in common between the two situations.
With Corbyn and Burnham labour at least have a shot at getting the Tories out, both come across as people with an idea and a direction instead of the faceless plumb that Labour had in place.
True, Corbyn represents true labour rather than the Tory lite Labour that hte party has become over the past 2 decades..
Tony Blair could have been Tory he's that far right of the scale. Labour right and the Tories have the same masters after all. Another thing is Corbyn is not a "friend of Israel". So he will be attacked from that quarter of Labour too hence all the antischemeitusm claims.
Genuine question as I've failed to find an answer and when he and his supporters have been asked they keep sidestepping the question . I keep hearing/reading that Corbyn''s problem is a naive strive for inclusiveness which is why he has shared platforms with and held meetings with the likes of the IRA, Hamas etc etc. .
Has he held meetings, shared platforms with representatives of the loyalist, zionist or victims of terrorist/freedom movement attacks.?
If not I'm not sure inclusiveness is the correct spin/description . Inclusiveness is what Mandela and yes even Paisley and Adams did..talking directly to your enemies. So far Corbyn's "inclusiveness" seems to be with people he already shares broad agreement with.
Don't get me wrong, as PM you have to talk to unsavoury people all the time but that's a job description not a dinner date.
And yes we have all criticised and scrutinised former PM''s who rubbed shoulders and shook hands with their current despots didn't we? Why does he get the "leave poor Corbyn alone"
I'll tell you why, because he's simply not seen as PM material. This is a student union campaign on steroids. If Cameron relationship with his Eton mates from the age of 6 on can be seen as relevant to the political debate then who Corbyn cosied with as an adult should too. What exactly was said and what exactly he advocated. The man is looking to lead the country FFS.
Has he held meetings, shared platforms with representatives of the loyalist, zionist or victims of terrorist/freedom movement attacks.?
If not I'm not sure inclusiveness is the correct spin/description . Inclusiveness is what Mandela and yes even Paisley and Adams did..talking directly to your enemies. So far Corbyn's "inclusiveness" seems to be with people he already shares broad agreement with.
Don't get me wrong, as PM you have to talk to unsavoury people all the time but that's a job description not a dinner date.
And yes we have all criticised and scrutinised former PM''s who rubbed shoulders and shook hands with their current despots didn't we? Why does he get the "leave poor Corbyn alone"
I'll tell you why, because he's simply not seen as PM material. This is a student union campaign on steroids. If Cameron relationship with his Eton mates from the age of 6 on can be seen as relevant to the political debate then who Corbyn cosied with as an adult should too. What exactly was said and what exactly he advocated. The man is looking to lead the country FFS.
I'll start off by saying I am not a supporter of Corbyn. I like what he is trying to achieve in part.. but will accept he does not have all the answers, but you must accept no one has all the answers.
____________________________________________________________
Genuine question as I've failed to find an answer and when he and his supporters have been asked they keep sidestepping the question . I keep hearing/reading that Corbyn''s problem is a naive strive for inclusiveness which is why he has shared platforms with and held meetings with the likes of the IRA, Hamas etc etc. .
(Corbyn does not speak for other attendees of meetings nor does he decide who else speaks) You are advocating guilt by association.
Has he held meetings, shared platforms with representatives of the loyalist, zionist or victims of terrorist/freedom movement attacks.?
See my last
If not I'm not sure inclusiveness is the correct spin/description . Inclusiveness is what Mandela and yes even Paisley and Adams did..talking directly to your enemies. So far Corbyn's "inclusiveness" seems to be with people he already shares broad agreement with.
I am not sure to be honest with you, like I said, he doesn't have all the answers he is trying to fix a problem with Labour, Labour surely you can see have been infested with neoliberal ideology which at it's core is little different from Tory ideology.
Don't get me wrong, as PM you have to talk to unsavoury people all the time but that's a job description not a dinner date.
Surely you realise that discussion with those that are diametrically opposed to you is important? Bombing people these last 3 decades seems not to have worked at all wouldn't you agree?
And yes we have all criticised and scrutinised former PM''s who rubbed shoulders and shook hands with their current despots didn't we? Why does he get the "leave poor Corbyn alone"
I'll tell you why, because he's simply not seen as PM material. This is a student union campaign on steroids. If Cameron relationship with his Eton mates from the age of 6 on can be seen as relevant to the political debate then who Corbyn cosied with as an adult should too. What exactly was said and what exactly he advocated. The man is looking to lead the country FFS.
______________________________________________________________________
The last bit, about being PM material is a cosmetic one, not one of substance.
A good leader, his best attribute is being able to pick the best people to have around him to get the job done imo
What do we know as things stand? That it is not working.
____________________________________________________________
Genuine question as I've failed to find an answer and when he and his supporters have been asked they keep sidestepping the question . I keep hearing/reading that Corbyn''s problem is a naive strive for inclusiveness which is why he has shared platforms with and held meetings with the likes of the IRA, Hamas etc etc. .
(Corbyn does not speak for other attendees of meetings nor does he decide who else speaks) You are advocating guilt by association.
Has he held meetings, shared platforms with representatives of the loyalist, zionist or victims of terrorist/freedom movement attacks.?
See my last
If not I'm not sure inclusiveness is the correct spin/description . Inclusiveness is what Mandela and yes even Paisley and Adams did..talking directly to your enemies. So far Corbyn's "inclusiveness" seems to be with people he already shares broad agreement with.
I am not sure to be honest with you, like I said, he doesn't have all the answers he is trying to fix a problem with Labour, Labour surely you can see have been infested with neoliberal ideology which at it's core is little different from Tory ideology.
Don't get me wrong, as PM you have to talk to unsavoury people all the time but that's a job description not a dinner date.
Surely you realise that discussion with those that are diametrically opposed to you is important? Bombing people these last 3 decades seems not to have worked at all wouldn't you agree?
And yes we have all criticised and scrutinised former PM''s who rubbed shoulders and shook hands with their current despots didn't we? Why does he get the "leave poor Corbyn alone"
I'll tell you why, because he's simply not seen as PM material. This is a student union campaign on steroids. If Cameron relationship with his Eton mates from the age of 6 on can be seen as relevant to the political debate then who Corbyn cosied with as an adult should too. What exactly was said and what exactly he advocated. The man is looking to lead the country FFS.
______________________________________________________________________
The last bit, about being PM material is a cosmetic one, not one of substance.
A good leader, his best attribute is being able to pick the best people to have around him to get the job done imo
What do we know as things stand? That it is not working.
Last edited:
I am still trying to figure out where I fit into the left right political spectrum
I like much about the left, but there is a lot about the left I dislike, same goes for the right. The centre just sit on their hands.
I like much about the left, but there is a lot about the left I dislike, same goes for the right. The centre just sit on their hands.
I think corbyn would take the party more to the left and gather some support from people who think labour are too similar to the Tories but I also think he would push a lot of people towards voting for the Tories to keep him away from Downing Street. Look how the press have already labelled him a communist, terrorist sympathiser. Isn't it likely they would go into overdrive if he was actually leading the party?
With some of his views and ideas his opposition will find it easy to attack him and put voters off.
I think he will win voters from the left but lose the centre ground.
I sit cross lines depending on specific issues as well. It's why I'm always wary of any ism as it is usually too inflexible to actually solve an issue.
I wasn't questioning who he actually sat down with more the description of being inclusive if he had not in fact sat down with those he detested or opposed.
While I would agree that the PLP has abandoned in all but name the people they claim to represent it is the direction in which they are looking (back)to gain it again that leaves me troubled. I've also always been conflicted by the problem a genuine labor movement has once it gains power. It alienates those it painted as non workers on the way. I also dislike such a close connection between unions and any party that will sit in govt. While I understand the historical development of the labour party I want my union to be independent from all. Look at Blairs time in power to see why.
Yes, guilt by association is too general. Which is why I stated that the scrutiny was needed to see what was said, by whom and in what context.
I'm wary with a "new answers" as they are rarely new. While you will obviously call it something different consensus politics is usually the best of a bad lot. Anyone doubting that need only look at the last person to rip up the consensus and what she then did. (Although as with everything that particular period of consensus is maybe not the best example lol)
I wasn't questioning who he actually sat down with more the description of being inclusive if he had not in fact sat down with those he detested or opposed.
While I would agree that the PLP has abandoned in all but name the people they claim to represent it is the direction in which they are looking (back)to gain it again that leaves me troubled. I've also always been conflicted by the problem a genuine labor movement has once it gains power. It alienates those it painted as non workers on the way. I also dislike such a close connection between unions and any party that will sit in govt. While I understand the historical development of the labour party I want my union to be independent from all. Look at Blairs time in power to see why.
Yes, guilt by association is too general. Which is why I stated that the scrutiny was needed to see what was said, by whom and in what context.
I'm wary with a "new answers" as they are rarely new. While you will obviously call it something different consensus politics is usually the best of a bad lot. Anyone doubting that need only look at the last person to rip up the consensus and what she then did. (Although as with everything that particular period of consensus is maybe not the best example lol)