UKC

On the news tonight calling for deselection of MPs who don't think the same thing he does.

Only a couple of weeks after he suggested a labour MP needed 'psychiatric help', again because the MP disagreed with him. When it turned out the MP actually had a history of depression, Livingstone refused to apologise, until clearly he was forced to.

Clearly for Ken, there is a right way to think, and having different thoughts has consequences.

Not sure that is a healthy position for senior labour figures to be taking...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

He certainly seems to have unusual PR advice at the moment... wasn't he picking on someone last week?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Don't worry about Ken. He's just a cheeky chappy. Who needs the "new gentler politics" when you've got cuddly Ken?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Clip I saw had him suggesting that local party should have right to deselect sitting MP if they were voting against what was the consensus in the party.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Maybe Ken is getting ambitious. With a clearly left wing party membership and Corbyn looking so out of his depth as a party manager, perhaps Ken is hoping to oust a sitting MP, get into Parliament and then step into the leader's job. Spreading a little fear among sitting MPs may not be a bad way of ensuring 35 of them are sufficiently unnerved to nominate him. Although he would be a new boy, he already has 14 years experience as an MP and, whatever else you say about him, showed himself to be a fairly able administrator as Mayor of London. Unlike Corbyn, he has actually done a very serious job.

His rhetoric may not sit well with outsiders but, to nick a phrase usually hurled at the Tories, it's dog whistle stuff that will appeal to the grassroots people who will elect the next leader.

One of the reasons, apparently, that the plotting against Corbyn has been so low key is that his opponents in the PLP know that even if they unseat him the membership will just elect more of the same. Step forward a revitalised Red Ken, destiny beckons!

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

He is worried, he had hopes of more power, but after Hilary Benn's speech he saw those hopes evaporate. His last chance is to try and shift Benn and his supporters by other means.

In reply to Hyphin:


It's a way of getting around the whip problem I suppose, Jeremy lets his MPs have a free vote and Ken gets them deselected if they vote the wrong way.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Yes, interesting interpretation.

And I guess it depends how wrapped up in their own world view the Labour Party has become; the authoritarian streak ken is giving vent to is pretty repellent to those from outside his core support, I'd have thought...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

There a few politicians coming to the end of their careers who have unexpectedly found positions of power and an opportunity to settle scores: 'beware of an old man in a hurry'.

In reply to Hyphin:


Yes- but how would that work in practice? How would the 'consensus' be defined? A party referendum on every policy? With MPs removed if they deviate from the result?

Would be expensive.

So maybe 'consensus' would be defined as it has been here, on what Ken thinks the party believes.

It's an interesting idea i suppose, but not sure how enticing a prospect it makes voting labour seem to anyone who doesn't already share a political worldview identical with Ken, which is most of the electorate....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Does strike me that the Labour Party is turning into the " nasty party" for its own members and supporters. Some of the the vitriol and abuse is unworthy of it's history etc.

In reply to neilh:


No different to the far left rent a mob, who arrive at every peaceful demo, wearing masks, then smash the place up. The 'peace, equality & love' far left, is far from tolerant and democratic.

In reply to neilh:


"Turning into"? It's left wing has long had a malign element. You only have to have read read the comments on CIF in the Grauniad (or sometimes UKC!) to realise the level of nastiness amongst some of its supporters.

Livingstone as mayor populated his office with authoritarian hard left associates . Many of them have now transferred over to Corbyn along with Livingstone. I honestly find it mystifying why people like Jarvis, Kendall and Creasey, or for that matter Burnham and Cooper are in the same party.

In reply to summo:

Agreed.But they do seem to have kept this, if you like, internal abuse at bay for the last 30 plus years.

Now its hitting the headlines.

Not much good of it came last time.

In reply to neilh:




The "Tory scum" and dancing on thatcher's grave etc memes have been bubbling away for most of the past 30 years. The difference is just that the rise of Corbyn means that it is now targeted within the Labour tribe again (as it was in the days of Militant). Of course the internet makes it more visible and recordable.

In reply to Postmanpat:


FPTP forcing parties into being broad coalitions innit? Which of course you know.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Interesting this "new gentler politics"..it seems to be full of death threats and sending pictures of dead children whilst standing outside peoples houses

In reply to neilh:

There has always been a strong vein of nastiness and intolerance in the left, particularly the hard left. Partly this is because if you believe you have the key to how the world should work, it tends to drive you to an authoritarian arogance, partly because the real world has a inconvenient habit of not conforming to your theoretical dictats of how it should. In this respect, the hard left are fairly similar to any cultist group, seeing themselves as the elect, privy to some truth that the ignorant masses are unworthy or incapable of realising.


Actually it is entirely consistent with its history. In the last days of the Soviet Union, it was quite common to confine dissidents to mental hospitals on the grounds that if they could not see the wonderful benefits of the glorious socialist society, they were clearly insane. As such, they were not being punished, they were being prevented from harming themselves and others. The fact that the mental hospitals concerned were in any normal sense indistinguishable from prisons, and particularly harsh, brutal prisons at that, did not in any way detract from this argument, for those that proposed it.

In the left-wing commentariat, the pseudo-medical or partially medical term "sociopath" is one of the most common terms of abuse directed toward anyone of a right-wing persuasion, or indeed anyone not paying lip-service to the required shibboleths. Of course those throwing this term around never have any medical qualifications that would allow them to genuinely diagnose mental illness, they simply assume that anyone who does not agree with them is both mad and bad. They do not see the irony of using a mental health issue as an insult.

In reply to seankenny:


Yes, but as believers in liberal democracy and market economies do Jarvis, Kendall etc have more in common with Ken Livingstone and Seamus Milne than with Ken Clarke?

In reply to seankenny:

But it is rather fun to see Stella's woman of the people schtick looking as thin as her skin.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

And its not funny to see her staff abused. That is just the type of comment that we are talking about. It's pathetic.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Got a very good email from my MP (Paul Blomfield - Sheff Central) explaining his reasons for voting against the airstrikes, but at same time saying he agreed with many of the points raised by Hilary Benn. He as also critical of how polarised the debate was, the "terrorist sympathers" vs "warmonger" stuff. Sadly I think moderate, well balanced opinions tend to drowned out

In reply to Chris the Tall:


If you can't make a meme out of it, forget it. I'm avoiding Facebook at the moment, as it appears that half of my friends think that 'Nuance' is a town in France.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Indeed- its easy to forget just how high the standard of debate and overall civility is on ukc, just look at my other two threads (I seem to be taking over the forum today...!) and contrast with the sort of venom and tribalism that seems to be so prevalent elsewhere...

In reply to Simon4:

The paradox with believing yourself to be moral and principled, it suggests that anyone who disagrees with you is neither of those things

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I think my decision to have no social media presence at all has served my sanity very well (other than this site of course but my profile is virtually nil...have always enjoyed the debates on here..decent group with varied views usually well argued)

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well Ken Clarke is forced into an internal coalition too!

In reply to seankenny:

Isn't the more general question why centrist parties never seem to do well, here or elsewhere? You would think that Lab, Tory and Lib moderates would coalesce and win every election easily, but it doesn't happen very much. When it has been tried (SDP, Blair) it seems to fail or fall apart quite quickly.

In reply to MG:

As Blair himself says, those who occupy the middle ground usually win.But that middle ground just shifts "colour"every so many years. So you just have to switch votes/allegiances.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

True. I certainly learn more from those I disagree with on here than my mates who I nominally agree with, a small downside being that some of the informed posters on UKC make me realise I'm pretty ignorant.

In reply to seankenny:


Which group within the Conservative party do you think is equivalent and has equivalent influence to Milne, Fisher or Livingstone et al?

In reply to Postmanpat:

UKIP?


a

In reply to Postmanpat:


You can't take the comments section of a newspaper as a litmus test for the views of a party supporter, or you'd have to also conclude that Telegraph readers (and by extension, Tory supporters) are a nasty, bigoted contemptuous bunch.

In reply to MG:


They left!

In reply to Trevers:

Who mentioned a litmus test? I deliberately referred to "some of its supporters".

But regarding the DT comments, I don't think that overall they come close to CIF in terms of being nasty or bigoted. Contemptous? Yes, but that is appropriate.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

I didn't say the Conservative Party was a mirror image of the Labour Party, merely that it had factions too - and it's well known that Ken Clarke's faction isn't the most powerful.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Well then we're agreed. Some Guardian readers are complete losers, and so are some Telegraph readers.

When I said contemptuous, I meant about those struggling on low incomes or with other vulnerabilities, not about Guardian readers.

In reply to seankenny:


Of course it has, the difference being that all of them appear to believe in liberal democracy and market economies.

In reply to neilh:




Probably because they changed their membership system and how they elect their leader.


Also the growth of the internet where people can threaten from afar.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Correct. Ken is Ken.

Has it ever mattered where power and influence lie? Ken is still Ken. Get over it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Some people are, rightly or wrongly, convinced that the Tories are claiming austerity is necessary when they know it's not, while cutting inheritance tax for very rich people and piling cuts on vulnerable people. Not to mention lying to the public in their dispute with junior doctors.

If you were convinced of these things, you'd probably call the scum too.

In reply to Donald82:


Possibly, but they could well be doing all these things in what they believed the best interests of the population of the UK.
I rather doubt that this possibility crosses the minds of your "some people".

Nice article by Cohen in the Grauniad,

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/05/jeremy-corbyn-new-poli...
"Stereotypes aren£t always pernicious. Leftwingers have benefitted for years from being typecast as decent people. They may possesses the self-righteousness of £a teenager who had just become a vegetarian£, as Jess Phillips, the marvellous Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, warned. But like teenage vegetarians, they mean well. If the world does not always turn out the way they planned, that is the world£s fault. It would be a better place if it did as the left told it to, sat up at the table and ate its greens.

Stereotypical rightwingers could not be more different. They are sexist, racist and hypocritical. Tories are motivated by greed and prejudice. The far right is driven by brutish blood lusts.

The hold of these stereotypes among the progressive, university-educated middle classes explains why you never hear a rightwing political comedian on Radio 4 or see a leftwing villain in a television drama. Comics and writers tear into Daily Mail and Sun readers but never Guardian and Observer readers. They assume that you are virtuous.

Anyone who saw Gordon Brown and his aides in action, or watched the student left ban speakers for disagreeing with them, has found the myth of leftwing decency hard to swallow. But it has taken the triumph of Jeremy Corbyn£s £new politics£ to finish it off."

In reply to Donald82:
Actually, in terms of this I would regard it as incompetent dishonesty common to many politicians of many parties.
There is certainly a case against it on moral grounds but not an argument that assumes any other parties are morally better.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

On the topic of deselection and playing devil's advocate a bit, isn't it a perfectly legitimate exercise of democratic rights for a constituency party to choose who it puts forward for election?

If a local party has been taken over by an unrepresentative minority of hard left activists, and they select a hard left candidate, then that is what the local party has chosen. Those who oppose that really need to get involved themselves and ensure that a more moderate candidate is selected. The problem is, the activists are by definition active, the more centrist moderates often less so.

Ultimately of course a Labour party putting up a high proportion of hard left candidates has to succeed in a General Election- Oldham notwithstanding the seems pretty obvious= more Tories.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's a great piece of commentary and hats off to the Guardian for printing it. You should book mark it for future battles

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Meanwhile if you don't agree with Cameron you're a "terrorist sympathiser".

Red Ken isn't the labour party!

The "far" of any party, group or collective, is not the majority of their members.

Talking to people, is not "keeping their company", it's trying to find another solution rather than bombing and killing.

Talking to people isn't agreeing with everything they say or stand for.

Red Ken isn't the leader of our country, yet is seems acceptable for the leader to brand everyone that doesn't agree with him a "terrorist sympathiser", and even when he knows this isn't true, cue numerous "everybody had to search their own conscience and struggle with their own decision". Still couldn't bring himself to do the honourable thing and apologise for such a crass remark. Shameful, he's like a petulant child, who if he was 9 years old might just be on punishment for his disgraceful words.

As a parent how am I supposed to explain that it's OK for our prime minister to use such inflammatory, dismissive language, yet teach her to respect other people's views.

In reply to Simon4:

You're not aware that your argument "the left are nasty because they say the right are nasty" is completely circular, are you?

In reply to krikoman:


Well, the obvious thing to do would be to explain that some people on the left wing of the Labour party have and probably still do sympathise with organisations and people regarded by the British government as terrorists: for example John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA.

You could also explain to them that describing Jeremy Corbyn and his close associates as a "bunch of terrorist sympathisers" is not at all the same thing as describing anyone one doesn't agree with, or votes with the "bunch", as a "terrorist sympathiser".

You might want to add that Cameron made it to a group of members of his own party, not for public consumption, but that nevertheless it was a foolish and inappropriate remark and he should have used more diplomatic language.

Anyway, I thought you were "out". Are you doing the hokeykokey or something?

In reply to Postmanpat:


The clearly implied context of Cameron's remark was the current situation in the Middle East; and not, for example, Northern Ireland.

It was a tasteless and unstatesmanlike swipe, which says a lot more about him than it does his political opponents.

In reply to Postmanpat:


...and in doing so display an eye-watering level of hypocrisy, given the evil of the people the Cameron sympathises with.


...except that the quote was “You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”. I think there's a pretty strong implication there, sorry.


Or just admit that it was the actions of complete imbecile, rather than trying to excuse and explain it away.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Do you believe that Corbyn and McDonnell "sympathise" with groups classified as "terrorists" in the Middle East in the same way that they "sympathised" with the IRA, or that they "sympathised" with none of them?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


To whom are you refering? Saudi again?


I don't. I think he was referring to Corbyn's small group of mates in the PLP who share his sympathies and that people chose to interpret it differently.


Or explain that he was adopting the new honest and transparent politics

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'll pick Kazakhstan this time, if you'd prefer? Pointing at your opposition and saying how bad they are because of people you've seen them support in the past is daft, whoever you are, in politics. It makes you look like a prick, because no one's house is clean in that regard. But this was really special, given the context.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I've agreed several times it ws a stupid thing to say. Actually I'm amazed by their restraint in their treatment of Corbyn and his mates given the ammunition they must have. Keeping it dry I assume.

As an ex civil servant you must surely understand that PMs don't have the freedom to choose their relationships as backbenchers do? Do you really think that Cameron was thinking what a great bloke Nazarbayev was or spent months lobbying to be allowed to visit Kazakstan?

I imagine PMs and foreign ministers of all parties have conversations along the lines of "Why the F*ck am I meeting these bloody people" at which point Sir Humphrey gives them a potted history of Anglo relationships with "The republic of Shitholia" and the crucial political and economic benefits of keeping them sweet, and the PM/foreign minister accepts 24 hours of tedious talks with a creep and a dinner with the creep and the Queen.

Corbyn doesn't have that excuse.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I totally agree. The simple point is that issuing slurs like "terrorist sympathiser" has no substance and serves only to make you look like a cock end.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'd simply argue it would obviously be spun as a "slur" and he would be made to look a cock end so he was dumb to use it.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

>
The didn't (dare?) open it up for comments for 24 hours and, entirely predictably, CIF is full of comments proving his point for him

In reply to Postmanpat:

You don't think "terrorist sympathiser" is a slur regardless of spin?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


No, because my interpretation of "slur" is that the allegation or insinuation is untrue.

In reply to

Excellent piece in the economist on the stop the war group

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21679485-britains-left-must-reject-an...

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'd consider it a 'slur' if you called me a poof...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

That's because the term is commonly used as a slang term of abuse for homosexuals .The terms "terrorist" and "sympathiser" are not slang or terms of abuse. They are descriptions.

It really depends on whether you regard "slur' simply to mean "negative" or whether you agree it implies something falsely. If the former, then you can regard "poof" as a slur. If the latter, then it isn't. It's an insult.

Terrorist sympathiser isn't, in itself, either.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I thought a slur was just an insult. And I've explained in detail on another thread just how stupid and meaningless the insult "terrorist sympathiser" is, but since you're so keen on this being an accurate and useful description, how about you answer this question:

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Terrorist is a term used in legislation which means it has a meaning sufficiently precise for use in law, so I think it also has a meaning precise enough for it to be meaningful in a pep talk to MPs. Cameron was politically unwise to use it (or allow his use to get out) but not wrong in using it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

In direct answer, when you deliberately set out to terrorise people as a tactic to obtain military or political aims I would say.

In reply to Postmanpat:


In your interpretation. Of course you don't know because you don't know the intent of whoever makes the comment.

As ever... you are taking pedantic interpretations and meaning of language to a position of non sense. ( or in subtle but obvious defence of anyone waving a blue flag).

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Technically, when you sympathise with them. When you share a platform with them and describe support as "magnificent" are you likely to be "unsympathetic"?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes, democracy in action......

A bad day in Labour history. At the end of the day does anyone know whether extending the bombing campaign will make any difference except that the bombers will use less fuel? There you go, it's all about oil.

In reply to abr1966:


Because Corbyn's defenders usually make the pedantic point that Corbyn has never been quite stupid enough to explicitly voice his support for terrorists, I am quite happy to make the pedantic point that he is nevertheless is a sympathiser with what is officially recognised as a terrorist organisation.

Personally I think that if somebody pretends to be seeking peace, as opposed to victory of one side over another, refuses to condemn terrorist violence when asked, and claims to be anti racist and anti homophobic but happily embraces and praises racist and homophobic organisations and people, then they should be pulled up on it no uncertain terms.

Lets take McDonnell, who sympathised not only with the IRA's ends but their violence ("those involved in the armed struggle should be honoured"), and then falsely claimed that he was in some mysterious way a precursor and supporter of the peace process, when in reality at crucial times he was against both the process and the outcome.
He is not only a "terrorist sympathiser", he is an outright liar. Perhaps the PM should have said that.

In reply to MG:

Re-read the question. I did not ask "how do you define a terrorist?".

In reply to Postmanpat:



I've thought about it quite a lot, and I doubt it. At heart the tory party really is about protecting the interests of the rich. The Labour party (who I don't particularly like), for all it's faults, still tries to protect the interests of the poor and vulnerable... although quite poorly of late.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well when one sympathises with (accepts, supports, thinks are justified) tactics designed to terrorise.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Do you honestly consider that an adequate reply to my question about support for Hamas?


Why are you asking that? I'm not arguing that McDonnell isn't a terrorist sympathiser - he clearly was sympathetic to the IRA, who were terrorists. The point is that it should be well beneath an intelligent adult in a position of great responsibility to use this as an insult, because it's such sloppy and intellectually dysfunctional behaviour. Other than exposing a complete lack of integrity, it also immediately invites charges of frightening hypocrisy.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

And I didn't give an answer about "you define a terrorist"!!

But to elaborate, if you share a platform, describe support for them as "magnificent" and consistently fail to question or criticise their terror campaigns you are probably sympathetic. And then if you describe the Jew and gay hater Raed Salah as " far from a dangerous man" and "very honoured citizen", then you're probably quite sympathetic.But I guess that Salah, is not a terrorist, just a racist, homophobic nasty bastard, so that's ok?

In reply to MG:


As in *where* on the scale I set out. Where?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No, MG did, and that's who my post was addressed to. Attention at the back!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I just said!!

In reply to MG:

Some genuinely believe that the [Palestinians'] grievance justifies Hamas' goals and tactics; while others wish that they'd do things a different way because those actions are so clearly counter-productive; while others strongly condemn Hamas' actions but see them and the Palestinian support for them as a result of oppression; while others would say that while the Palestinians have a right to resist oppression, Hamas are worse than the Israelis because they deliberately target innocent civilians.

Which of those groups fall under the definition "terrorist sympathiser" and which do not?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well it's an interesting concept regarding, 'sympathies' or 'honour' or 'share a platform'...

I've experienced my fair share of IRA terrorists or 'combatants' as they would call themselves. It's all a bit of a grey area as to how people construct their identity or describe themselves.

Some were just nasty thugs but there were some who believed in their cause.

I think you make some reasonable comments but you are not equal in the attribution of your comments. I believe you are conservative and defend right wing views whilst attempting to project an objective position. I think you fail in this.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


No, you may have tried but it was just a bit of self-indulgent semantic onanism, it had no value at all.

You can't cite your own verbiage to justify more verbiage.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Why are you struggling here?

Yes

while others wish that they'd do things a different way because those actions are so clearly counter-productive
No

while others strongly condemn Hamas' actions but see them and the Palestinian support for them as a result of oppression;
No

while others would say that while the Palestinians have a right to resist oppression, Hamas are worse than the Israelis because they deliberately target innocent civilians.
Can't say

In reply to abr1966:


Well, Im fairly clearly not supporting "left wing" views am I? And I make no claim to neutrality.
What is interesting is that it is the "soft left" that is making as much noise as anyone about the nastiness and hypocrisy of the "hard left".

In reply to Donald82:

Keep thinking....!!

In reply to MG:


Because now you've answered the question, you can see that that's just your personal view: all of the above groups are constantly described by those who support Israel as terrorist sympathisers for taking those positions. The term is just an insult that is the hallmark of the unthinking prat with a massive axe to grind.

In reply to winhill:

What a shit contribution.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

That just means English has been mangled by some others. A sensible definition is clear enough for common use, and indeed clear enough for legal use (e.g "glorifying terrorism").

In reply to Jon Stewart:



I've agreed that is was stupid of Cameron to use the phrase in the circumstances, as PM, ahead of a crucial vote. In other circumstances I think it would show he, or anyone who described McDonnell in these honest and transparent terms and hopefully undermining any claims McDonnell has to respectability, as a person of integrity.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It's probably true at a politic level. I don't think that represents the actual membership of the Labour Party or infact the large part of the population who are not only seeing their opportunities diminish but also their hope to make a better life for thselves.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes, although it was presented that Corbyn deserved credit for the free vote, in fact, when it was obvious that people would ignore the Whip, he simply withdrew it so that his authority would look less challenged.

The irony here is that Corbyn and Ken have records as habitual rebels, Corbyn was the most rebellious Labour MP under Blair. When he and Ken start making threats about deselection, it's because neither have a record of achieving in depth support in the party. Ken ran the GLC as a fiefdom and Corbyn is a low achieving Politician of the Perverse.

So it's no surprise they lack the acumen to make anything happen, they just don't have it in their toolbox.

In reply to MG:

That's a very confident position you hold there: your definition of something as vague, subjective and politically motivated as "terrorist sympathiser" is universal, and anyone using it differently is "mangling English". What a simple world you inhabit - and I doubt I can coax you out of it!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Except Thatcher came to power in what John Nott described as a Coup in 1975, so the Tories had shifted to the far right 40 years ago, before the rise of Militant through the Labour party, Harold Macmillan quite distraught over it but then he also presided over his own Night of the Long Knives in 1962, so the infighting in the Tory party (John Major's bastards) has always seemed more open and divisive than the brotherly love of Labour .

Remember Alan Clark marvellously describing Heseltine as a 'man who had to buy his own furniture', you don't get that sort of old money snobbery in Labour.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The irony is great. You spend so many hours on here complaining and refuting generalisations about issues like how you perceive 'the left' to refer to the right as having no morality but, alas, you trip yourself up continually. The 'labour tribe'?
I'm sure you'll be retorting with a pedantic response, but it'll be hollow....you're not much different, just that you're wrapped in a blue flag.

In reply to abr1966:
>
What is your evidence for this? I can't think of much evidence since the 1980s that more than a small minority of the population has sympathy either for the attitudes of hard left or their links with racist, homophobes and terrorists..

In reply to abr1966:

>
Rather old post you're replying to. Whats your objection to this description? They even use it about themselves and have discussions about it at their conference,

" we are hosting ’round table’ discussions with the speakers above. Each table will get one speaker from the above list who will host a discussion surrounding the question: ‘Can Labour be an open tribe?”

In reply to winhill:


The Tories always did it with more style

In reply to winhill:

The trident debate is going to be interesting.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Some style though, I think the mention of Militant shows a very rosy treatment of the Tories. Throughout the 50s to 80s there were all sorts of Fascists operating within the party, who supported terrorists across the globe.

In fact the ascendency of Thatcher to Premier is credited with killing off much of the terrorist supporting fascism within the Tories - precisely because she had taken the party enough to the right to bring them back into the fold.

The UDA is a good case in point, killed their first victim in 1972 and not proscribed until 1992 due to their rosy links with the Tories.

The Federation of Conservative Students were open supporters, their wearing of badges saying Victory to the UDA to the Tory Party Conference in 1987 finally getting them disbanded.

From 1961-2001 you had the Monday Club, an oddball arrangement of fascists and terrorists sympathisers, who regularly organised the world's most rancid people to talk at fringe Tory conference events. Again linked to the UDA, by Molyneaux.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Monday_Club

Of course prior to Thatcher you had the 1970 private armies, parodied in Reggie Perrin, led by a wide range of establishment figures, like Walter Walker and Ross McWhirter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Walker_(British_Army_officer)

In reply to winhill:

It's no secret that the Conservatives had some pretty dodgy characters in its right wing. The vast majority were closed down or left of their own accord over the years. Interesting to see Gerald Howarth come out of his cave recently to have a go at Corbyn.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You have a very short and selective memory, It's wasn't that long ago that your idol Maggie and her US lapdog Ronny were praising Bin Laden and vilifying Nelson Mandela.

Your new best friend, David, was condemning Russia, saying bombing in Syria would only create more IS followers, Oct 2015.

It could a be argued that Hamas are freedom fighters elected in a free election, fighting against invaders of their land. As is allowed under UN law under a number of articles; crimes against property, collective punishment, imprisonment without trial.

You chose not to answer the question I posed, "how many conflicts have been resolved without talking to the other side?"


I realise it must be difficult for you, but that was another thread.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Cameron, a man of integrity...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/10-big-policy-promises-broken-6965585

In reply to krikoman:


Yes, because one was a useful ally in a geopolitical conflict involving the defence of one State against an invasion by another, and the other was committed to using extra-State violence to achieve his aims. However good his aims, he nevertheless believed in the use of terror to achieve them.


Amongst other things I think you'll find Russia has very different bombing tactics and strategy to the UK.


Yes, it could be, but by the UK it isn't. What couldn't be denied that it is an undemocratic, authoritarian, homophobic, sexist and racist organisation. So if one wants to support the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people a man of integrity might want to address some of these issues in dealing with Hamas.


Because it is based on number of false assumptions. Conflicts are not resolved by a bunch of supporters of one side talking to each other. They are resolved by representatives of opposing sides talking to each other. There is a role for a third party to promote such a dialogue but this is not what Corbyn, Stop the War or his other mates have done.


Ah yes, silly me.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sadly, though what other option did they have in South Africa? You don't really seem to be against killing people, you pro bombing in Syria, so where's your line in killing people for justice?


Your memory really is fading, may be you need a rest, it wasn't that long DC was asking us to go and bomb Assad, thankfully he failed to convince anyone.


So are you saying we should have NO conversations with regimes like this, in which case why does DC cozy up to Saudi, worse than talking to then, actually encouraging trade and selling them weapons. Going by your statement we'd not be talking to a great number of states, including Israel. Was it right for Cameron to met with Mandela after he became president, considering you stance on not talking to terrorists.


So who, if nobody can be arsed to find out what might resolve a conflict, is going to do it? If everybody just turns their backs and let's them get on with it, is it more likely to become entrenched and last longer or do these things just resolve themselves?

In reply to krikoman:
>
The world had the option of talking to and pressurising the regime until the realised that for a number of reasons, not least economic, they couldn't continue as they were. That, after all, is ultimately what happened.
I'm not against killing people in all cases. Nor is Corbyn. I am am a fence sitter but probably tending towards accepting bombing of Syria, for reasons I have rehearsed elsewhere.
Proportionate killing is sometimes necessary in defence, or when other avenues of resolution are closed.


Yes,that was quite dumb of him I think. Having said that, in a situation as fluid as that in Syria it is no surprise, and not necessarily wrong, that tactics and strategies change.


No. Read it again. I'm in favour of Governments trying to find peaceful ways of resolving conflicts by talking when that option exists.
As for your point about talking to Mandela 1) Obviously there is difference between talking to somebody actively planning terrorist acts, and somebody decades later who is President of his country!!! 2) There are times when terrorists should be talked to, but not supported without, it would seem, much reservation.

Two obvious points:

1) PMs and governments are in a totally different position to back benchers or third parties. They have a responsibility for the security and interests of the country that elected them, and inherit a complex set of relationships and commitments that cannot simply be ditched every time the government changes. They thus have to maintain relationships that they may not savour much.
To quote myself "I imagine PMs and foreign ministers of all parties have conversations along the lines of "Why the F*ck am I meeting these bloody people" at which point Sir Humphrey gives them a potted history of Anglo relationships with "The republic of Shitholia" and the crucial political and economic benefits of keeping them sweet, and the PM/foreign minister accepts 24 hours of tedious talks with a creep and a dinner with the creep and the Queen.

Corbyn doesn't have that excuse"

2) Neither you nor Corbyn seem to acknowledge that governments do lots of lobbying behind the scenes to try and achieve change-just as Major/Blair did with the IRA, and the UK tries with Saudi. This surely is what Corbyn favours? It's weird that he favours this with our enemies but not with our strategic allies.


Do you honestly believe that Stop the War is reaching our to these organisations in order to bring them into compromise peace talks? We know from McDonnell's activities with the IRA that he resisted the ultimately successful peace process because it wasn't producing the united Ireland he wanted.

There is every reason to believe that Stop the War et al is in the same position on the ME.
It knows and accepts that Hamas wants an Islamic dictatorship and the eradication of Israel and is OK with that. If it had any real interest in facilitating a peace process it would be reaching out to the Israelis and trying to suggest areas of compromise to both. But it wants peace just like the Israeli right wants peace: on their terms.

If you want an example of how independent parties can facilitate peace then look up Michael Young, Cons Gold and South Africa. A representative of a company closely associated with and benefitting from the white regime went out on a limb to facilitate the peace process.

In reply to Postmanpat:


If read a number of pieces about, Michael Young, he was only able to help broker the peace through his contacts with the ANC President, Oliver Tambo. If he had never spoke to either of these groups then he'd have had no influence whatsoever, which sort of defeats your argument against JC.

If "Stop the War" isn't reaching out to try and prevent war then what's your take on their motive. I don't know much about them to be honest. I always thought they just wanted to stop killing people in the name of peace.

In reply to krikoman:


Aaaah. Why am I bothering? That is my point. I don't think I could make it much plainer. Why are you missing this?
To broker a peace you have to reach out to the other side, not just cheer on your own side. That is what Young did and Corbyn doesn't.


They are "anti Western imperialism" so side with pretty much anyone who is on the other side, regardless of their morals or motives or actions.

In reply to Postmanpat:



But he didn't do this straight away did he, he was on one side then decided to talk to the other, maybe JC on his way there.


Like I sad I don't know much about them, but I'm not really in favour of Western Imperialism either, maybe I should sign up.

Maybe you could start a counter group, "Carry on the War" and promote Western Imperialism to even things out a bit.

In reply to krikoman:


After 33 years in parliament?



I am beginning to understand why you are struggling with this so I may leave you to it.

Do you think that being against many aspects of Western behaviour
is a justification siding with their enemies regardless of their philosophies, moralities or actions?

If you believe that the enlightenment, liberal democracy and the values such as human rights, and condemnation of racism and sexism that evolved out of liberal democratic values are generally a good thing, do you think it is a good thing to side with people whose central belief system rejects all those values?

If you think ( which is not unreasonable) that Western imperialism is not a good thing, how do you define if you think it exists?
How should the West exact itself from it without causing even more chaos?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Had, as in past tense? They weren't closed down and the point is they came back, not that they left.

Howarth and the Freedom Association merely the continuous line (banned from the Tory Conference so limited to the fringe venues but they still entertained Farage, who was their most popular speaker ever.

The Monday Club a prime example, led by Guinness, the fabulously wealthy heir, son of Mitford, Oswald Mosley's fascist wife, so far right that when he was challenged for the leadership by GK Young, erstwhile deputy director of MI6, the National Front members backed Young but Guinness still won because he was far, far right even of the NF!

Walker, who I mentioned was ex-Nato's Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces Northern Europe.

And David Stirling, founder of the SAS formed a private army group called GB75 (perhaps literally a paper tiger as no members have ever been found).

But these Tory fascist groups were led by the great and the not so good, enjoying huge power and wealth.

THe NF were supported, not just by rank and file thugs but a section of Tory middle management volunteers, exactly the same as has happened with UKIP. Whilst Labour bemoans losing a few voters, the Tories are losing managers who actually volunteer for stuff, so are ideologically much more committed, in terms of time and money. Hence the FA's approaches to Farage.

Compare this to the left, who had Red Robbo for example, a Longbridge shop steward, who was pursued by MI5 and who Edwardes sacked from BL because he was convinced that the Austin Metro wouldn't go ahead whilst Robbo was employed. It was typical of the hideously weak management that had plagued Austin since the war and relied on the hammer of MI5 to break a nut about working practices!

The absolute paranoia of the fascist Tory right was driven into apoplexy by Ted Heath, who made 2 mistakes, firstly he let in Idi Amin's Uganda Asians, only 50,000 or fewer but that enraged the racists, then he lost a battle to the Unions and he had to go to be replaced by someone who was going to take the Unions on.

The irony of Thatcherism was that her economic policies actually saw the largest rise in Asian immigration of any PM before or since.

Her success was that she managed to impregnate the fascist paranoia of the Unions into the UK's collective unconscious, where it still sits even today.

I think if you want to understand the history here you need to look not just at what happened (bad enough) but also who was involved and the type of power they wielded.

In reply to krikoman:

An interesting look into "Stop the (Western Imperialist) war":

https://medium.com/@KateVotesLabour/how-stop-the-war-learned-to-stop-worryi...

In reply to winhill:




Well, since this bunch of oddballs is, as you point out, banned, then we can regard them in the past tense in terms of influence in the Conservative party. If Gerald Howarth replaces Cameron as leader and tries to reintroduce his old mates and their young equivalents into the party and appoints them as his media and defence advisors then we'll know they are back.

The neat trick of the left is to equate economic liberalism and union legislation with racism, homophobia and fascism. They are not the same at all.

In reply to off-duty:



I got to here and gave up, "Ever wonder why acts of foreign horror— terrorism for example, are explained as the fault of those who sell weapons to people who can’t help but to use them?

It’s because under really hardcore Marxist theory, if you live in any Western country, it’s your fault."

While we don't issue them with instructions along the lines, "you must use this gun to kill someone with the first year of it's manufacture to avoid warranty issues". It's not the same as selling arms to people we know are going to use them to oppress some other people or sell them on to our enemy (whoever that maybe at the time).

And then we have the issue of supply arms to our ally who then turns out to be not so nice and ends up shooting us with the bullets we supplied them.

It's like handing out knifes and then wondering why people get stabbed!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Banned from holding meetings at the Party Conference, not banned from the party. Their interface with UKIP, in an attempt to retain Tory activists, crucial. Like I said, you can't understand the Politics of Power unless you understand which individuals are involved and what their relevance is.


Using MI5 to tackle a single shop steward is hardly some dreamy action inspired by 'union legislation', as for fascism, again you need to look at who was involved.

Neil Hamilton, the buffoon mostly remembered for Cash for Qs and his remarkably peculiar taste in women, was the main defender of the FCS when they were disbanded for their support of far right terror groups, travelled to Italy to take part in a Fascist rally organised by the MSI, the Italian Neo-Fascist party set up and run by one of Mussolini's ex-ministers, a bona fide, real deal, 100%, WW2 Italian Fascist.

The dalliance of yoof perhaps, except 20 years later he helped Western Goals organise another fringe meeting at the Tory conference, inviting Jean-Marie Le Pen of the Front Nationale and Alessandra Mussolini, the old dictators grand daughter and MSI MP, Fascist official. (it didn't go ahead as they both failed to attend, however 3 years earlier WG had got a Front Nationale MEP to speak at the fringe.

Western Goals, of course went on to make El Salvador's Death Squad enforcer, Major Roberto d'Aubuisson one of it's patrons!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Goals_Institute

Fascism can be an overused phrase but here it is the most historically accurate, being a bit kinder will only get you to Neo-Fascist.

In reply to winhill:
>
And then of course there was John Bercow. Whatever happened to him?

There were plenty of odd characters like Hamiton on the right wing of the party who held racist and quasi fascist views and also saw the unions as a threat to their "values". That does not demonstrate that believing the Unions needed to be reined makes somebody a fascist.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make (?)

In reply to Postmanpat:


And there still are.


No-one said it did, until you brought it up as a strawman.


That the depth and the scale of far-right fascism in the rank and file, middle management and upper levels of the Tory party and the higher echelons of the Establishment has always been and continues to be a far greater threat to democracy and liberalism than Red Ken, Red Robbo, King Arfur or Jezza Corbyn can ever hope to be.

Beliefs to the contrary are just Cold War paranoia.

In reply to winhill:


Actually it was what you were implying, as you do below.



Lol, I'll leave it you to it, watch out for those jackboots in the shadows......

PS. can you recommend any good books on this topic?

In reply to winhill:

I recommend you read Dominin Sandbrooks " Seasons in the Sun" Britain 1974-79 to get a more balanced perspective of the influence of far-right facisists in the UK.

In reply to neilh:


I saw the TV thing, IIRC it was the out of control, She-Devil incarnate Marcia Williams' fault?

What did he say about Walker?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Hardly, like I said you won't really understand it unless you know who was involved, you seem to think that people had discrete identities that meant they were outside of the Tories, when in fact it was just the same people doing the rounds, just like now with UKIP.

None of this is particularly disputed, you can find most of it on Wiki if you follow the links I spoon fed you, the other 20% perhaps takes a bit of effort.

In reply to winhill:


No , it is common knowledge which has been around for decades and you happen to have put a particularly comical spin on. I wondered if you could point to some rational analysis but if that's all you have, just take care out there, especially of skinheads in bovver boots

In reply to Postmanpat:


Inheritance tax cut

In reply to winhill:

Not much, a few paragraphs.

Considering there is a whole chapter on "power to the people" and the rise of Militant Tendancy etc, it put things in perspective for the 70's.

There is an interesting historical perspective with recent events in the Labour Party, and how in the late 70's the electorate swung away from it. Especially when a small vociferous left fought openly with the traditional Labour party.It did not end well.