This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Leftwing pressure group Momentum is asking Labour parliamentary contenders to sign a contract that ties them to the “political objectives” set out in the organisation’s constitution to secure its support in upcoming selection battles, the Observer has learned. Several contenders to be Labour candidates in marginal seats are understood to have signed the contract. The 13-point “political accord for Momentum-backed candidates” asks candidates to “work to ensure the Labour manifesto (subject to future policy development) is fully implemented once Labour are in government”.
Included in the signed contract is the commitment to “revitalise the Labour party by building on the values, energy and enthusiasm of the Jeremy for Leader campaign”. Some Labour MPs are known to be alarmed by the move, following an attempt by Labour activists to unseat the leader of Haringey council last month. Claire Kober fought off a challenge to win reselection in her ward, but it was seen as a warning that Momentum plans to support candidates that back Jeremy Corbyn at all levels of the party.
One Labour MP, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “It reflects a Stalinist approach to politics that Momentum would come up with such a contract for candidates. It has worrying implications for our democracy that there could be MPs in parliament who have signed away their right to independent judgment,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/momentum-loyalty-test-woul...
Do our Labour supporting members agree with this? Or, like me, do you feel it is bad for the party, and bad for UK politics?
Quote;
> "There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. "
Orwell "1984"
Post edited at 05:36
11
10
In reply to Big Ger:
What concerns her now is the deafening silence emanating from her own side on this matter. “The party has got to call this out. But yet again, I feel it will be weak. They will not take the sort of robust action they need to. My whip said, ‘Sorry to hear about this’, but there’ll be no further interest because at least one of them [those attacking her] is a Conservative himself: Tom Borwick [leading light of Vote Leave, the son of the former Conservative MP for Kensington Victoria Borwick, and one of those encouraging people on social media to tell their MPs face to face what they make of their so-called attempts to thwart Brexit]. He hasn’t issued death threats, but by calling us anti-democratic, he is stoking and fuelling the fire. There’s something about these hard Brexiters: it’s fascinating, actually. Look at the language some of them use. It’s not enough that you accept the result [of the referendum]; it’s not enough that you voted to trigger article 50. Now it’s, ‘Yeah, yeah, but do you believe?’ It’s like the counter-revolutionary forces of Chairman Mao or Joe Stalin. It’s not enough that you went against everything you ever believed in; you have to sign up in blood. It’s like Orwell’s thought police and the reign of terror combined.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/26/anna-soubry-interview-brex...
Third Way, anyone?
What concerns her now is the deafening silence emanating from her own side on this matter. “The party has got to call this out. But yet again, I feel it will be weak. They will not take the sort of robust action they need to. My whip said, ‘Sorry to hear about this’, but there’ll be no further interest because at least one of them [those attacking her] is a Conservative himself: Tom Borwick [leading light of Vote Leave, the son of the former Conservative MP for Kensington Victoria Borwick, and one of those encouraging people on social media to tell their MPs face to face what they make of their so-called attempts to thwart Brexit]. He hasn’t issued death threats, but by calling us anti-democratic, he is stoking and fuelling the fire. There’s something about these hard Brexiters: it’s fascinating, actually. Look at the language some of them use. It’s not enough that you accept the result [of the referendum]; it’s not enough that you voted to trigger article 50. Now it’s, ‘Yeah, yeah, but do you believe?’ It’s like the counter-revolutionary forces of Chairman Mao or Joe Stalin. It’s not enough that you went against everything you ever believed in; you have to sign up in blood. It’s like Orwell’s thought police and the reign of terror combined.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/26/anna-soubry-interview-brex...
Third Way, anyone?
11
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Weird isn’t it ? Corbyn spends his entire political career insisting on following his conscience (fair enough), then gets into power and insists that everyone else follows his conscience too.
Weird isn’t it ? Corbyn spends his entire political career insisting on following his conscience (fair enough), then gets into power and insists that everyone else follows his conscience too.
31
3
16
4
In reply to Big Ger:
Not a labour supporter (left wing SNP member, so you could class me as a sympathetic outsider), but an internal party pressure group saying to prospective candidates "if you want our support you have to commit to working towards fulfilment of the party's pledges to the electorate" doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. In fact I quite like the idea that the party would be focused on delivering its manifesto, rather than promising one thing and delivering another as it's so often the case.
Not a labour supporter (left wing SNP member, so you could class me as a sympathetic outsider), but an internal party pressure group saying to prospective candidates "if you want our support you have to commit to working towards fulfilment of the party's pledges to the electorate" doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. In fact I quite like the idea that the party would be focused on delivering its manifesto, rather than promising one thing and delivering another as it's so often the case.
12
2
13
1
3
In reply to Big Ger:
To be honest, I'm not keen, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you'd like to make it out to be.
Considering the backstabbing bastards in the PLP who even now are still trying get rid of JC it's hardly surprising. There's a massive rift between what some of these politicians think people want and what they actually do want; listening to would be a great start.
There's still a great confusion about the Labour party, and the support of JC, it isn't him that's the focus, it's what he stands for. He's the only politician that seems to understand a vast majority of Labour voters and what's wrong with politics for a lot of them.
His popularity isn't about him but his policies.
Some bellend in the Times yesterday wrote a piece which just didn't get it, it was about the TV program looking at Labours take on the last election. Specifically the anit-JC squad.
Kinnock, really wanted JC to fall flat on his arse, as did many others, this goes to the root of many of the arguments we've seem about JC since he became leader.
1. It's not about policies, it's about winning; if your not in power you can't change anything. (this is when JC was "unelectable")
Obvioulsy they didn't factor in what would have happened in the election if they'd all been backing JC and his policies.
2. It's the old guard who've been waiting to take over since 1970; 65% of young people voted for Labour.
3. If you vote Labour we'll be back, to the 1970's and the winter of discontent; the policies are very different from then and I dare say we've learnt a thing or two since then. It seems to me the Tories, even though they keep trying, can't keep blaming the last Labour party for their failures. 7 years of austerity and where are we now, weren't we promised we'd have paid our debt off by now?
4. borrowing is bad, but it isn't is it? All businesses borrow to fund growth, the Tories are borrowing to pay the bills, that's where it's going wrong. Personal borrowing is bad for the economy, but that's not being discouraged or controlled, in fact quite the opposite.
House prices are higher because, local planning are including services which should be paid for by the council, locally our bus service has be stopped because the 15 year fund by the developers of the housing estate has just run out. Who paid for this? It wasn't the developers as were told it is, it's put onto the price of the houses, so we all end up paying higher costs for housing. This includes people how already own their own house because for higher rents the council pay to private landlords.
It seems to me, the old "He's unelectable" mantra has so obviously failed, so what other scare tactics can we use to try and stop people voting Labour?
Back to the 70s, Chapman Mao, Uncle Joe, Big Brother, take you pick.
To be honest, I'm not keen, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you'd like to make it out to be.
Considering the backstabbing bastards in the PLP who even now are still trying get rid of JC it's hardly surprising. There's a massive rift between what some of these politicians think people want and what they actually do want; listening to would be a great start.
There's still a great confusion about the Labour party, and the support of JC, it isn't him that's the focus, it's what he stands for. He's the only politician that seems to understand a vast majority of Labour voters and what's wrong with politics for a lot of them.
His popularity isn't about him but his policies.
Some bellend in the Times yesterday wrote a piece which just didn't get it, it was about the TV program looking at Labours take on the last election. Specifically the anit-JC squad.
Kinnock, really wanted JC to fall flat on his arse, as did many others, this goes to the root of many of the arguments we've seem about JC since he became leader.
1. It's not about policies, it's about winning; if your not in power you can't change anything. (this is when JC was "unelectable")
Obvioulsy they didn't factor in what would have happened in the election if they'd all been backing JC and his policies.
2. It's the old guard who've been waiting to take over since 1970; 65% of young people voted for Labour.
3. If you vote Labour we'll be back, to the 1970's and the winter of discontent; the policies are very different from then and I dare say we've learnt a thing or two since then. It seems to me the Tories, even though they keep trying, can't keep blaming the last Labour party for their failures. 7 years of austerity and where are we now, weren't we promised we'd have paid our debt off by now?
4. borrowing is bad, but it isn't is it? All businesses borrow to fund growth, the Tories are borrowing to pay the bills, that's where it's going wrong. Personal borrowing is bad for the economy, but that's not being discouraged or controlled, in fact quite the opposite.
House prices are higher because, local planning are including services which should be paid for by the council, locally our bus service has be stopped because the 15 year fund by the developers of the housing estate has just run out. Who paid for this? It wasn't the developers as were told it is, it's put onto the price of the houses, so we all end up paying higher costs for housing. This includes people how already own their own house because for higher rents the council pay to private landlords.
It seems to me, the old "He's unelectable" mantra has so obviously failed, so what other scare tactics can we use to try and stop people voting Labour?
Back to the 70s, Chapman Mao, Uncle Joe, Big Brother, take you pick.
Post edited at 15:07
11
3
In reply to Ciro:
Yes, it hardly seems controversial that Labour members expect their Labour representative to campaign for the Labour party and its values. It's a shame they felt the need to get the security of a contract but it makes sense when you see some of the MP's on the right of the party have chosen to campaign to bring Corbyn down instead of campaigning for a Labour government. John Woodcock, Labour MP for Barrow, took away any democratic choice for the people of Barrow when he actually ran on a ticket saying that if he got the opportunity he would sabotage Labour to prevent his party from forming a government. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/labour-mp-i-will-not-countenance-...
Yes, it hardly seems controversial that Labour members expect their Labour representative to campaign for the Labour party and its values. It's a shame they felt the need to get the security of a contract but it makes sense when you see some of the MP's on the right of the party have chosen to campaign to bring Corbyn down instead of campaigning for a Labour government. John Woodcock, Labour MP for Barrow, took away any democratic choice for the people of Barrow when he actually ran on a ticket saying that if he got the opportunity he would sabotage Labour to prevent his party from forming a government. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/labour-mp-i-will-not-countenance-...
8
1
In reply to Ciro:
If only that were the case. Did you read the article? Oh and aren't MPs there to represent their constituents, not just follow the dictates of Chairman Jez?
"It has worrying implications for our democracy that there could be MPs in parliament who have signed away their right to independent judgment,”
> Not a labour supporter (left wing SNP member, so you could class me as a sympathetic outsider), but an internal party pressure group saying to prospective candidates "if you want our support you have to commit to working towards fulfilment of the party's pledges to the electorate" doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. In fact I quite like the idea that the party would be focused on delivering its manifesto, rather than promising one thing and delivering another as it's so often the case.
If only that were the case. Did you read the article? Oh and aren't MPs there to represent their constituents, not just follow the dictates of Chairman Jez?
"It has worrying implications for our democracy that there could be MPs in parliament who have signed away their right to independent judgment,”
Post edited at 21:58
4
6
In reply to cumbria mammoth:
Isn't that exactly NOT what this implies? Isn't "Momentum" dictating Labour policy, and weeding out /eradicating those who may have their own take on how Labour should progress?
A Labour party organised and constricted along the lines of Mao, Stalin, or Jong Un, isn't exactly going to be a great vote winner with the general public.
> Yes, it hardly seems controversial that Labour members expect their Labour representative to campaign for the Labour party and its values.
Isn't that exactly NOT what this implies? Isn't "Momentum" dictating Labour policy, and weeding out /eradicating those who may have their own take on how Labour should progress?
A Labour party organised and constricted along the lines of Mao, Stalin, or Jong Un, isn't exactly going to be a great vote winner with the general public.
2
6
In reply to Big Ger:
Yes, I read the article. The above quote was given by an MP who wished to remain anonymous, and is simply an indication of their discomfort, not a statement of fact.
I haven't read the accord, so I don't know the other 11 points (please let us know if you've seen more and that's what's worrying you), but if we assume the two points that the newspaper raised are the pertinent ones, the anonymous MP didn't wish to be bound by a promise to “work to ensure the Labour manifesto (subject to future policy development) is fully implemented once Labour are in government” or to “revitalise the Labour party by building on the values, energy and enthusiasm of the Jeremy for Leader campaign”.
As I said, there doesn't seem much wrong with in internal party pressure group trying to pressure it's MPs to work to ensure the manifesto is implemented, or to revitalise the party by building on the surge of support for the new leader.
Would you honestly prefer your political party to be filled with MPs who wanted to work against the manifesto or devitalise the party? The broken promises and constant manouvering and back-stabbing in the current government, for example, is not a recipe for success and stability.
> If only that were the case. Did you read the article? Oh and aren't MPs there to represent their constituents, not just follow the dictates of Chairman Jez?
> "It has worrying implications for our democracy that there could be MPs in parliament who have signed away their right to independent judgment,”
Yes, I read the article. The above quote was given by an MP who wished to remain anonymous, and is simply an indication of their discomfort, not a statement of fact.
I haven't read the accord, so I don't know the other 11 points (please let us know if you've seen more and that's what's worrying you), but if we assume the two points that the newspaper raised are the pertinent ones, the anonymous MP didn't wish to be bound by a promise to “work to ensure the Labour manifesto (subject to future policy development) is fully implemented once Labour are in government” or to “revitalise the Labour party by building on the values, energy and enthusiasm of the Jeremy for Leader campaign”.
As I said, there doesn't seem much wrong with in internal party pressure group trying to pressure it's MPs to work to ensure the manifesto is implemented, or to revitalise the party by building on the surge of support for the new leader.
Would you honestly prefer your political party to be filled with MPs who wanted to work against the manifesto or devitalise the party? The broken promises and constant manouvering and back-stabbing in the current government, for example, is not a recipe for success and stability.
9
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Not at all. There's nothing in it that says they can't work constructively to shape the future changes to the manifesto, it just says they'll back the outcome.
They are a political campaign group promoting candidates that share their political goals. Not sure where you get Mao, Stalin or Un out of that - political campaigning is an integral part of democracy - but if you truly believe it's not going to be a vote winner, why are you worried?
> Isn't that exactly NOT what this implies? Isn't "Momentum" dictating Labour policy, and weeding out /eradicating those who may have their own take on how Labour should progress?
Not at all. There's nothing in it that says they can't work constructively to shape the future changes to the manifesto, it just says they'll back the outcome.
> A Labour party organised and constricted along the lines of Mao, Stalin, or Jong Un, isn't exactly going to be a great vote winner with the general public.
They are a political campaign group promoting candidates that share their political goals. Not sure where you get Mao, Stalin or Un out of that - political campaigning is an integral part of democracy - but if you truly believe it's not going to be a vote winner, why are you worried?
5
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Once again though you're spouting what you've been told is happening, in the same fashion you were telling us, JC was unelectable not so long ago.
This is the fight Labour is up against, not the conservatives, it's what some people choose to believe rather than the reality.
Kinnock wanted a massive failure for Labour in the last election, to prove HE was right. It wasn't about what the people wanted, it was really about him. there's a lot of other people like him in the PLP which is why people are looking for a change.
If all those doubters in the PLP and Labour party had go behind JC instead of listening to the media, we'd have a Labour government now.
If you watched the program you'd see the people enthused and campaigning were ordinary people who've not been involved in politics before, but saw the opportunity for change. Momentum have helped channel that enthusiasm.
> A Labour party organised and constricted along the lines of Mao, Stalin, or Jong Un, isn't exactly going to be a great vote winner with the general public.
Once again though you're spouting what you've been told is happening, in the same fashion you were telling us, JC was unelectable not so long ago.
This is the fight Labour is up against, not the conservatives, it's what some people choose to believe rather than the reality.
Kinnock wanted a massive failure for Labour in the last election, to prove HE was right. It wasn't about what the people wanted, it was really about him. there's a lot of other people like him in the PLP which is why people are looking for a change.
If all those doubters in the PLP and Labour party had go behind JC instead of listening to the media, we'd have a Labour government now.
If you watched the program you'd see the people enthused and campaigning were ordinary people who've not been involved in politics before, but saw the opportunity for change. Momentum have helped channel that enthusiasm.
Post edited at 10:07
7
In reply to Big Ger:
Interestingly, in my local Labour Party branch, all the Momentum members have been deselected for the May council elections. A shame, because in at least in a couple of cases, they were doing a very good job.
Interestingly, in my local Labour Party branch, all the Momentum members have been deselected for the May council elections. A shame, because in at least in a couple of cases, they were doing a very good job.
1
2
In reply to krikoman:
For me the only policy that makes any sense is stopping brexit* so I won't vote Labour until they have someone at the helm who wants to stop brexit. (Not that he'll notice my protest given our crap electoral system).
* yes I'm a remoaning traitorous enemy of the people living in an elite's only metro-bubble, yes I lost and no I'm not getting over it.
For me the only policy that makes any sense is stopping brexit* so I won't vote Labour until they have someone at the helm who wants to stop brexit. (Not that he'll notice my protest given our crap electoral system).
* yes I'm a remoaning traitorous enemy of the people living in an elite's only metro-bubble, yes I lost and no I'm not getting over it.
11
1
In reply to Ciro:
I'd prefer an MP who wasn't coerced into toeing an internal sub group's party line, and who put the interests of their constituency first.
Oliver Kamm of The Times wrote in October 2015: "Like the Trotskyists of a generation ago Momentum is an entrist organisation that’s parasitic on the Labour host. This time, though, the far left has managed to gain control of the party structures and is intent on making life tough for Labour MPs"
> Would you honestly prefer your political party to be filled with MPs who wanted to work against the manifesto or devitalise the party? The broken promises and constant manouvering and back-stabbing in the current government, for example, is not a recipe for success and stability.
I'd prefer an MP who wasn't coerced into toeing an internal sub group's party line, and who put the interests of their constituency first.
Oliver Kamm of The Times wrote in October 2015: "Like the Trotskyists of a generation ago Momentum is an entrist organisation that’s parasitic on the Labour host. This time, though, the far left has managed to gain control of the party structures and is intent on making life tough for Labour MPs"
Post edited at 01:05
1
4
In reply to krikoman:
I'm still telling you that, and this will just confirm it. (Assuming you mean "elected PM", as he is already elected.)
Nope, this is reality, Momentum really exist and want to take Labour to the hard left.
Good for him.
I think you're wrong.
Lots of nice middle class students you mean?
> Once again though you're spouting what you've been told is happening, in the same fashion you were telling us, JC was unelectable not so long ago.
I'm still telling you that, and this will just confirm it. (Assuming you mean "elected PM", as he is already elected.)
> This is the fight Labour is up against, not the conservatives, it's what some people choose to believe rather than the reality.
Nope, this is reality, Momentum really exist and want to take Labour to the hard left.
> Kinnock wanted a massive failure for Labour in the last election, to prove HE was right. It wasn't about what the people wanted, it was really about him. there's a lot of other people like him in the PLP which is why people are looking for a change.
Good for him.
> If all those doubters in the PLP and Labour party had go behind JC instead of listening to the media, we'd have a Labour government now.
I think you're wrong.
> If you watched the program you'd see the people enthused and campaigning were ordinary people who've not been involved in politics before, but saw the opportunity for change. Momentum have helped channel that enthusiasm.
Lots of nice middle class students you mean?
1
7
In reply to Big Ger:
The women in the program were middle aged working class people, but lets not let facts get in the way eh?
You think it's better for British politics if the people who are supposed to represent you are more concerned on whether they are right, even when they are wrong, than representing you, then you deserve all you get. If you can't make the leap of reasoning that this is why JC is popular then it's easy to understand your stance on the subject.
Why would people jaded with the present state of politics, possible want any kind of reform or change; ludicrous isn't it?
> Lots of nice middle class students you mean?
The women in the program were middle aged working class people, but lets not let facts get in the way eh?
> Good for him.
You think it's better for British politics if the people who are supposed to represent you are more concerned on whether they are right, even when they are wrong, than representing you, then you deserve all you get. If you can't make the leap of reasoning that this is why JC is popular then it's easy to understand your stance on the subject.
Why would people jaded with the present state of politics, possible want any kind of reform or change; ludicrous isn't it?
6
1
In reply to Big Ger:
That wasn't the question I asked. If you take the test of the pledge at face value and don't try to spin it, the alternative to working for the manifesto is working against it, and the alternative to vitalising the party is devitalising it.
Ask yourself, why would anyone even think it was necessary to ask for that? The labour party, and the Tories, are riven with infighting - and neither of these battles are helping the country. The referendum was cooked up to try to heal internal party divisions, but it's done nothing of the sort with the government lurching from one crisis to the next, while the opposition missed an open goal at the last election due to a bunch of MPs deciding they would rather fight against the members choice for leader than join in the election campaign. The sooner they both stop the internal fighting, the better. From my point of view, preferably with the right of the conservative party going back to UKIP, and the right of the labour party moving to its spiritual home in the conservative party, while the centre and left of the labour party finds a cohesive position. But whatever way it settles, we need political parties with some direction and conviction.
An important part of representing the interests of your constituency is helping to form a cohesive government or a cohesive opposition - democracy requires both to function well.
Take anyone who uses the term "hard left" with regard to the current labour movement with a large pinch of salt. The centre right took control of the party in the 90s, and the left is now taking it back but there's very nothing particularly "far" about any of their policies. It's all pretty standard modern social democracy stuff, aimed at reducing inequality within the capitalist system, not overthrowing it. It seems to work week for the Scandinavian countries, and I didn't see why it can't work well here.
> I'd prefer an MP who wasn't coerced into toeing an internal sub group's party line, and who put the interests of their constituency first.
That wasn't the question I asked. If you take the test of the pledge at face value and don't try to spin it, the alternative to working for the manifesto is working against it, and the alternative to vitalising the party is devitalising it.
Ask yourself, why would anyone even think it was necessary to ask for that? The labour party, and the Tories, are riven with infighting - and neither of these battles are helping the country. The referendum was cooked up to try to heal internal party divisions, but it's done nothing of the sort with the government lurching from one crisis to the next, while the opposition missed an open goal at the last election due to a bunch of MPs deciding they would rather fight against the members choice for leader than join in the election campaign. The sooner they both stop the internal fighting, the better. From my point of view, preferably with the right of the conservative party going back to UKIP, and the right of the labour party moving to its spiritual home in the conservative party, while the centre and left of the labour party finds a cohesive position. But whatever way it settles, we need political parties with some direction and conviction.
An important part of representing the interests of your constituency is helping to form a cohesive government or a cohesive opposition - democracy requires both to function well.
> Oliver Kamm of The Times wrote in October 2015: "Like the Trotskyists of a generation ago Momentum is an entrist organisation that’s parasitic on the Labour host. This time, though, the far left has managed to gain control of the party structures and is intent on making life tough for Labour MPs"
Take anyone who uses the term "hard left" with regard to the current labour movement with a large pinch of salt. The centre right took control of the party in the 90s, and the left is now taking it back but there's very nothing particularly "far" about any of their policies. It's all pretty standard modern social democracy stuff, aimed at reducing inequality within the capitalist system, not overthrowing it. It seems to work week for the Scandinavian countries, and I didn't see why it can't work well here.
7
In reply to Big Ger:
How do you feel about 80% (or thereabouts) of the Conservative party being members of Conservative Friends of Israel. What influence do they have on British politics? What do both sides get out of the relationship?
This isn't simple the party supporters but the MPs who are there to represent us.
See above.
Also this wasn't what Kinnock was doing was it, he was following his own agenda, against the Labour party and it's supporters. It's hardly surprising Momentum has it's supporters when, the supporters are being told they are idiots, being brainwashed, or being ignored.
As for "hard Left" really!!!
> Nope, this is reality, Momentum really exist and want to take Labour to the hard left.
How do you feel about 80% (or thereabouts) of the Conservative party being members of Conservative Friends of Israel. What influence do they have on British politics? What do both sides get out of the relationship?
This isn't simple the party supporters but the MPs who are there to represent us.
> I'd prefer an MP who wasn't coerced into toeing an internal sub group's party line, and who put the interests of their constituency first.
See above.
Also this wasn't what Kinnock was doing was it, he was following his own agenda, against the Labour party and it's supporters. It's hardly surprising Momentum has it's supporters when, the supporters are being told they are idiots, being brainwashed, or being ignored.
As for "hard Left" really!!!
Post edited at 11:05
4
1
In reply to Big Ger:
This is the entire reason that I, a Socialist (and son of a Shop Steward) will NOT vote Labour.
The party is now controlled by what I regard as Stalinists - people who want total and unquestioning servility by the masses.
It is no longer the party of the workers.
This is the entire reason that I, a Socialist (and son of a Shop Steward) will NOT vote Labour.
The party is now controlled by what I regard as Stalinists - people who want total and unquestioning servility by the masses.
It is no longer the party of the workers.
1
3
In reply to Big Ger:
"I'd prefer an MP who wasn't coerced into toeing an internal sub group's party line, and who put the interests of their constituency first"
Are you on glue luvvy?
Ever heard of the parliamentary whip system?
They mostly vote whichever side their bread is buttered on, with notable exception.
D
"I'd prefer an MP who wasn't coerced into toeing an internal sub group's party line, and who put the interests of their constituency first"
Are you on glue luvvy?
Ever heard of the parliamentary whip system?
They mostly vote whichever side their bread is buttered on, with notable exception.
D
8
In reply to fred99:
Stalin, as head of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party that claimed to expel "opportunists" and "counter-revolutionary infiltrators".[15][16] Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.[15][17][18]
Is it possible you might be exaggerating just a teeny bit? Asking people to pledge to uphold the manifesto isn't quite the same as forced labour and execution...
> This is the entire reason that I, a Socialist (and son of a Shop Steward) will NOT vote Labour.
> The party is now controlled by what I regard as Stalinists - people who want total and unquestioning servility by the masses.
Stalin, as head of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party that claimed to expel "opportunists" and "counter-revolutionary infiltrators".[15][16] Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.[15][17][18]
Is it possible you might be exaggerating just a teeny bit? Asking people to pledge to uphold the manifesto isn't quite the same as forced labour and execution...
6
1
In reply to Big Ger:
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/stroud-green-cllr-tim-gallagher-stands-pulls-...
> A Stroud Green councillor has said he won’t stand in next year’s local elections blaming a ‘poisonous’ selection process. Tim Gallagher joins a number of councillors who have pulled out of the race including Haringey mayor Stephen Mann, Stroud Green’s Raj Sahota and council housing chief Alan Strickland who, like Gallagher, failed to automatically get selected after not winning a majority in first round elections.
> Comparing changes in the party since local elections in 2014, Cllr Gallagher wrote: “Four years on Haringey Labour is an entirely different beast, inflamed with division, distrust, and what at times feels like hatred amongst party members.“It has been embodied in particular by this poisonous selection process,” he added before noting all ‘sides’ shared blame for the mess.
> He went on to say nothing excused the ‘aggressive purge’ of all councillors not deemed to fit a ‘flat-pack’ mould of Labour thinking.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/stroud-green-cllr-tim-gallagher-stands-pulls-...
1
4
In reply to Ciro:
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step....."
> Is it possible you might be exaggerating just a teeny bit? Asking people to pledge to uphold the manifesto isn't quite the same as forced labour and execution...
>"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step....."
1
5
In reply to fred99:
Come on Fred get a grip when was the last time it was the party of the workers?
There's no workers left for a start off.
Are you sure we haven't had so many years of right wing Labour, that a slight and it is only slight step leftwards isn't needed?
> It is no longer the party of the workers.
Come on Fred get a grip when was the last time it was the party of the workers?
There's no workers left for a start off.
Are you sure we haven't had so many years of right wing Labour, that a slight and it is only slight step leftwards isn't needed?
3
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Can you not see the irony here?
Considering what they went through to try and get rid of JC as the leader, don't you think it's a little rich?
I'm not keen on momentum, if only because it looks like a group within a group, but they are organising people, enthusing people to get involved instead of sitting on their arses or wandering around wondering what to do for the best.
The biggest problem I see for Labour is a lot of people what to keep the status quo, which is the raison d'être for Momentum in the first place.
This latest outcry may only be people wanting things to stay as they were, i.e. another Tony Blair and a right of centre Labour party.
Considering you get the like of Fred99 moaning they don't represent the workers any more, I'd have thought this was a good thing.
Can you not see the irony here?
Considering what they went through to try and get rid of JC as the leader, don't you think it's a little rich?
I'm not keen on momentum, if only because it looks like a group within a group, but they are organising people, enthusing people to get involved instead of sitting on their arses or wandering around wondering what to do for the best.
The biggest problem I see for Labour is a lot of people what to keep the status quo, which is the raison d'être for Momentum in the first place.
This latest outcry may only be people wanting things to stay as they were, i.e. another Tony Blair and a right of centre Labour party.
Considering you get the like of Fred99 moaning they don't represent the workers any more, I'd have thought this was a good thing.
4
In reply to krikoman:
You raise some salient points.
To be honest, I'd love JC to be able to put a coherent and united Labour party, and manifesto, to the nation, even if it was full of things I disagree with. At least then we'd have a choice in politics.
However, I don't think Momentum has got the right way of going about it, and I can see, in weeks and months to come, a split opening in the Labour party with Labour Leave, Momentum, Blarite Labour and Labour remain factions all infighting.
That will only allow a weak and divided Tory Party to muddle along as the least worse choice.
You raise some salient points.
To be honest, I'd love JC to be able to put a coherent and united Labour party, and manifesto, to the nation, even if it was full of things I disagree with. At least then we'd have a choice in politics.
However, I don't think Momentum has got the right way of going about it, and I can see, in weeks and months to come, a split opening in the Labour party with Labour Leave, Momentum, Blarite Labour and Labour remain factions all infighting.
That will only allow a weak and divided Tory Party to muddle along as the least worse choice.
Post edited at 08:57
2
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
You're right, we're in danger of becoming a violently oppressive Communist dictatorship. How long do you forecast between labour winning a general election and the first political executions?
> "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step....."
You're right, we're in danger of becoming a violently oppressive Communist dictatorship. How long do you forecast between labour winning a general election and the first political executions?
6
1
In reply to Big Ger:
How do you think they should go about it? The split is already there, and cost labour the last election as many within the PLP refused to back the members choice for leader and direction.
Momentum are asking prospective candidates to pledge to follow that direction if they want their support, which seems like an eminently sensible and democratic way to heal that rift to me - the minority views within the party will slowly be replaced by those who want to build the coherent and united labour party you're looking for
> To be honest, I'd love JC to be able to put a coherent and united Labour party, and manifesto, to the nation, even if it was full of things I disagree with. At least then we'd have a choice in politics.
> However, I don't think Momentum has got the right way of going about it, and I can see, in weeks and months to come, a split opening in the Labour party with Labour Leave, Momentum, Blarite Labour and Labour remain factions all infighting.
How do you think they should go about it? The split is already there, and cost labour the last election as many within the PLP refused to back the members choice for leader and direction.
Momentum are asking prospective candidates to pledge to follow that direction if they want their support, which seems like an eminently sensible and democratic way to heal that rift to me - the minority views within the party will slowly be replaced by those who want to build the coherent and united labour party you're looking for
2
1
In reply to Ciro:
My hope is that the British electorate would realise the mistake that they have made before it is irreversible. Remember, in the 1970s there would loud voices near the top of the Labour movement who wanted a Labour government to be run by a council of TUC leaders and politicians to act merely as front men. Their political heirs infest Momentum.
> You're right, we're in danger of becoming a violently oppressive Communist dictatorship. How long do you forecast between labour winning a general election and the first political executions?
My hope is that the British electorate would realise the mistake that they have made before it is irreversible. Remember, in the 1970s there would loud voices near the top of the Labour movement who wanted a Labour government to be run by a council of TUC leaders and politicians to act merely as front men. Their political heirs infest Momentum.
1
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
And if they don't, how long until the executions start?
> My hope is that the British electorate would realise the mistake that they have made before it is irreversible. Remember, in the 1970s there would loud voices near the top of the Labour movement who wanted a Labour government to be run by a council of TUC leaders and politicians to act merely as front men. Their political heirs infest Momentum.
And if they don't, how long until the executions start?
4
1
In reply to Ciro:
I suspect it might be more Eastern Europe than the Soviet Union, so no executions but effective restrictions on free speech and behaviour. Currency controls for a kick off ,attacks on private property rights within a decade, and a growing public sector restricted probably to those sticking to the party line down the road.
That the Labour party General Secretary Ron Hayward confided in the Soviets his plans to capture the party machinery by developing a cadre of young activists sounded quaint when we found about it a few years back. Not quite so quaint now....
> And if they don't, how long until the executions start?
I suspect it might be more Eastern Europe than the Soviet Union, so no executions but effective restrictions on free speech and behaviour. Currency controls for a kick off ,attacks on private property rights within a decade, and a growing public sector restricted probably to those sticking to the party line down the road.
That the Labour party General Secretary Ron Hayward confided in the Soviets his plans to capture the party machinery by developing a cadre of young activists sounded quaint when we found about it a few years back. Not quite so quaint now....
Post edited at 10:44
2
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Why is it that, Labour haters always bring up the 70s?
You don't think anything has changed since then, we've not learnt anything.
I dare say a Tory party from the 70's would be just as bed.
Labour isn't going back to the 70's as a 5 minute read of their manifesto will prove to you.
Considering the Tories have ripped off a number of proposals from the Labour manifesto, it can't be that bad can it?
> My hope is that the British electorate would realise the mistake that they have made before it is irreversible. Remember, in the 1970s there would loud voices near the top of the Labour movement who wanted a Labour government to be run by a council of TUC leaders and politicians to act merely as front men. Their political heirs infest Momentum.
Why is it that, Labour haters always bring up the 70s?
You don't think anything has changed since then, we've not learnt anything.
I dare say a Tory party from the 70's would be just as bed.
Labour isn't going back to the 70's as a 5 minute read of their manifesto will prove to you.
Considering the Tories have ripped off a number of proposals from the Labour manifesto, it can't be that bad can it?
7
1
In reply to krikoman:
>
Lots of hard liners close to Corbyn, self confessed Marxists and anti capitalists, tactics that are ominous reminders of their murky past, fellow travellers driven by hate and bile....
If you really believe that their manifesto is the extent of their ambitions I have a bridge to sell you. Leopards don't change their spots but they are experts at camouflage.....
I think they've learnt how to control the Labour party and hide their intentions better.
> Why is it that, Labour haters always bring up the 70s?
> You don't think anything has changed since then, we've not learnt anything.
>
Lots of hard liners close to Corbyn, self confessed Marxists and anti capitalists, tactics that are ominous reminders of their murky past, fellow travellers driven by hate and bile....
If you really believe that their manifesto is the extent of their ambitions I have a bridge to sell you. Leopards don't change their spots but they are experts at camouflage.....
I think they've learnt how to control the Labour party and hide their intentions better.
Post edited at 11:17
1
2
In reply to Ciro:
The Manifesto is one thing, the "Great Leader" is a completely different matter.
And what has Jeremy Corbyn been doing during his time on the back benches - constantly going against the party line.
Seems more like "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
> Is it possible you might be exaggerating just a teeny bit? Asking people to pledge to uphold the manifesto isn't quite the same as forced labour and execution...
The Manifesto is one thing, the "Great Leader" is a completely different matter.
And what has Jeremy Corbyn been doing during his time on the back benches - constantly going against the party line.
Seems more like "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
2
In reply to krikoman:
I agree with point one.
Point two - most members now seem to be middle-class pseudo lefties, who simply want to tell us working-class "oiks" (in their view) what to think and do.
Blair was referred to as "the Conservative B team" by someone I used to work with - quite apt I thought.
I have every agreement with a step left - I cannot and will not support the elimination of free will or the personality cult that has now appeared with Corbyn and "Momentum".
> Come on Fred get a grip when was the last time it was the party of the workers?
> There's no workers left for a start off.
> Are you sure we haven't had so many years of right wing Labour, that a slight and it is only slight step leftwards isn't needed?
I agree with point one.
Point two - most members now seem to be middle-class pseudo lefties, who simply want to tell us working-class "oiks" (in their view) what to think and do.
Blair was referred to as "the Conservative B team" by someone I used to work with - quite apt I thought.
I have every agreement with a step left - I cannot and will not support the elimination of free will or the personality cult that has now appeared with Corbyn and "Momentum".
2
In reply to fred99:
I'd say it's the media who are telling you what to think and do, more than Labour. I don't see Labour telling anyone what to do, rather they are putting forward their suggestions for not carrying on with business as normal.
So you want someone in between Blair and Corbyn then?
It's not a personality cult, it's a manifesto cult if anything, the problem is, without JC and the battle to get him into power, we'd still be stuck with Tony Blair. It's difficult for me to understand how many "traditional" Labour voters are failing to see this.
It's not about JC, but what he represents.
As for "middle-class pseudo lefties" what are you basing this statement on? Most of the supporters of Labour I know are what would have been called working class.
What's so wrong with the middle class anyhow? Surely if you're going to discount the validity of the middle class then Labour are never going to get in power.
Discounting someone because of their economic status seems very short sighted if not plain crazy.
Maybe it's time to round off the chips on your shoulders.
> I agree with point one.
> Point two - most members now seem to be middle-class pseudo lefties, who simply want to tell us working-class "oiks" (in their view) what to think and do.
I'd say it's the media who are telling you what to think and do, more than Labour. I don't see Labour telling anyone what to do, rather they are putting forward their suggestions for not carrying on with business as normal.
> Blair was referred to as "the Conservative B team" by someone I used to work with - quite apt I thought.
So you want someone in between Blair and Corbyn then?
> I have every agreement with a step left - I cannot and will not support the elimination of free will or the personality cult that has now appeared with Corbyn and "Momentum".
It's not a personality cult, it's a manifesto cult if anything, the problem is, without JC and the battle to get him into power, we'd still be stuck with Tony Blair. It's difficult for me to understand how many "traditional" Labour voters are failing to see this.
It's not about JC, but what he represents.
As for "middle-class pseudo lefties" what are you basing this statement on? Most of the supporters of Labour I know are what would have been called working class.
What's so wrong with the middle class anyhow? Surely if you're going to discount the validity of the middle class then Labour are never going to get in power.
Discounting someone because of their economic status seems very short sighted if not plain crazy.
Maybe it's time to round off the chips on your shoulders.
4
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Capitalism is broken though isn't it?
We're encouraged to spend more and buy more stuff we don't need, to stimulate the economy. We're encouraged to have more children to supply more workers to contribute to OUR pension pots.
The governments is borrowing money to pay their bills rather than for infrastructure and services.
So it's not exactly working is it?
We're now pissing money out of the country for water, electricity and gas, when it would be equally easy and better for the country to have at least one nationalised supplier of each of these commodities.
We're rapidly losing any control over any significant market that affects our country. The whole Brexit bollocks was about taking control, when what were really doing is selling control to the highest bidder.
> Lots of hard liners close to Corbyn, self confessed Marxists and anti capitalists, tactics that are ominous reminders of their murky past, fellow travellers driven by hate and bile....
Capitalism is broken though isn't it?
We're encouraged to spend more and buy more stuff we don't need, to stimulate the economy. We're encouraged to have more children to supply more workers to contribute to OUR pension pots.
The governments is borrowing money to pay their bills rather than for infrastructure and services.
So it's not exactly working is it?
We're now pissing money out of the country for water, electricity and gas, when it would be equally easy and better for the country to have at least one nationalised supplier of each of these commodities.
We're rapidly losing any control over any significant market that affects our country. The whole Brexit bollocks was about taking control, when what were really doing is selling control to the highest bidder.
4
1
In reply to krikoman:
Hilary Benn would do - leftwing but able to compromise (when necessary) rather than carry on wearing blinkers.
Then why include JC in the article to be sworn to ?
People receiving (I hesitate in many cases to call it earning) above the national average wage, which is itself well above the national MEDIAN average wage are not the lower working class - they are definitely middle class. They might not like to call themselves that, but when they're sending their kids to private school they are not your ordinary workers.
Nothing per se, but when they refuse to listen to the real working class, and instead try to foist their views on people who they look down upon (in much the same way that white racists regard the views that anyone of colour may have to be immaterial) then they can get stuffed.
People with money generally assume that because they have money they are somehow better than those without, and also assume that their views are correspondingly more valid.
This makes the great assumption that they have personally been responsible for obtaining their position.
However most people with money either inherited it, or else their parents used their money to obtain better schooling, university, and a leg-up into their occupation. And how did said parents get their money - again via the same route.
Maybe it's time you did - I like mine (especially with salt & vinegar and some fish).
> So you want someone in between Blair and Corbyn then?
Hilary Benn would do - leftwing but able to compromise (when necessary) rather than carry on wearing blinkers.
> It's not a personality cult, it's a manifesto cult if anything.
Then why include JC in the article to be sworn to ?
> It's not about JC, but what he represents.
> As for "middle-class pseudo lefties" what are you basing this statement on? Most of the supporters of Labour I know are what would have been called working class.
People receiving (I hesitate in many cases to call it earning) above the national average wage, which is itself well above the national MEDIAN average wage are not the lower working class - they are definitely middle class. They might not like to call themselves that, but when they're sending their kids to private school they are not your ordinary workers.
> What's so wrong with the middle class anyhow? Surely if you're going to discount the validity of the middle class then Labour are never going to get in power.
Nothing per se, but when they refuse to listen to the real working class, and instead try to foist their views on people who they look down upon (in much the same way that white racists regard the views that anyone of colour may have to be immaterial) then they can get stuffed.
> Discounting someone because of their economic status seems very short sighted if not plain crazy.
People with money generally assume that because they have money they are somehow better than those without, and also assume that their views are correspondingly more valid.
This makes the great assumption that they have personally been responsible for obtaining their position.
However most people with money either inherited it, or else their parents used their money to obtain better schooling, university, and a leg-up into their occupation. And how did said parents get their money - again via the same route.
> Maybe it's time to round off the chips on your shoulders.
Maybe it's time you did - I like mine (especially with salt & vinegar and some fish).
3
2
In reply to krikoman:
> Capitalism is broken though isn't it?
>
Arguably. As I've said before, Corbyn asks many of the right questions and comes up with most of the wrong answers.
1
In reply to fred99:
So you're basing your your dislike on how much people earn!!
What do you say to the working class kid who works his way up or even starts a business which does well, they can't vote Labour or they're not true Labourites?
Your prejudice seems to be a little twisted if you ask me, and risks putting people who have money from turning away from Labour.
Being a socialist isn't dependant on how much you earn. I'll be working class how ever much I earn, surely socialism is a state of mind not a measure of your earnings.
Your suggestion of Hilary Benn, hardly fits with your model of an ideal Labour supporter, average wage etc. According to you he should be off somewhere else, probably Lib Dems I suppose.
> People receiving (I hesitate in many cases to call it earning) above the national average wage, which is itself well above the national MEDIAN average wage are not the lower working class - they are definitely middle class. They might not like to call themselves that, but when they're sending their kids to private school they are not your ordinary workers.
So you're basing your your dislike on how much people earn!!
What do you say to the working class kid who works his way up or even starts a business which does well, they can't vote Labour or they're not true Labourites?
Your prejudice seems to be a little twisted if you ask me, and risks putting people who have money from turning away from Labour.
Being a socialist isn't dependant on how much you earn. I'll be working class how ever much I earn, surely socialism is a state of mind not a measure of your earnings.
Your suggestion of Hilary Benn, hardly fits with your model of an ideal Labour supporter, average wage etc. According to you he should be off somewhere else, probably Lib Dems I suppose.
2
In reply
Look at some of this thread and sees it is more yarn than thread.
Meaning of which is contributers who are non voter of British Labour Party think they are surreptitiously extracting urine from ones who do but not doing good job at it. Plain to see.
Post edited at 16:31
1
2
In reply to Tanke:
As the cod East European accent gets even less convincing, so too the attempted trolling gets less entertaining.
> In reply
> Look at some of this thread and sees it is more yarn than thread.
> Meaning of which is contributers who are non voter of British Labour Party think they are surreptitiously extracting urine from ones who do but not doing good job at it. Plain to see.
As the cod East European accent gets even less convincing, so too the attempted trolling gets less entertaining.
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
Why troll it makes no sense or is this a way you use to suppress person who you want to be quiet? I am not from eastern Europe I am from central Europe where I say I am from Eastern Europe? I learning English better all a time from work collegues and online good that soon I go home after work stay period is over it is a good here but melancholy for my country and family.
Why troll it makes no sense or is this a way you use to suppress person who you want to be quiet? I am not from eastern Europe I am from central Europe where I say I am from Eastern Europe? I learning English better all a time from work collegues and online good that soon I go home after work stay period is over it is a good here but melancholy for my country and family.
Post edited at 19:42
1
In reply to Ciro:
I agree that Labour is a many fractured party, and that the chance of them changing to be a modern centre left party are slim. The election of Corbyn showed a desire of many in the party to return to Labour's od socialist roots, with nationalised industries, high state borrowing, high taxation, and freebies for all.
Unfortunately there is a new power base within the party which is middle class and more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power.
To be quite honest I do not see how anybody can resolve this hydra headed infighting, let alone sell the Labour party to the general public. They had an ideal chance last election, the Tories were split, Libs offered no resistance, and the public were fed up with elections. Yes they came close, but short of every Tory candidate being pictured strangling kittens while interfering with little boys, I do not see how much more of an open goal they could have missed.
I think it's time for Labour to split, and some form of Lib/Lab centre-left-liberal party to emerge.
> How do you think they should go about it? The split is already there, and cost labour the last election as many within the PLP refused to back the members choice for leader and direction.
I agree that Labour is a many fractured party, and that the chance of them changing to be a modern centre left party are slim. The election of Corbyn showed a desire of many in the party to return to Labour's od socialist roots, with nationalised industries, high state borrowing, high taxation, and freebies for all.
Unfortunately there is a new power base within the party which is middle class and more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power.
To be quite honest I do not see how anybody can resolve this hydra headed infighting, let alone sell the Labour party to the general public. They had an ideal chance last election, the Tories were split, Libs offered no resistance, and the public were fed up with elections. Yes they came close, but short of every Tory candidate being pictured strangling kittens while interfering with little boys, I do not see how much more of an open goal they could have missed.
I think it's time for Labour to split, and some form of Lib/Lab centre-left-liberal party to emerge.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Not many, the majority. And not socialism, social democracy.
Ah, I see. You feel threatened by equality?
An open goal? The election that the Tories called when they didn't need to in order to increase their majority, the one that no serious political commentator was suggesting was even possible for labour to win, the one that was campaigned for whilst the leadership was under a three pronged attack from the Conservatives, a hostile media, and a large part of the parliamentary labour party? If the PLP had decided to become part of the fight to win the election instead of fighting against the members, they'd have won it.
Well one way to resolve the hydra headed infighting would be for the majority in the party to only support candidates for election who pledged to align themselves with the political objectives of the majority.
But apparently that's bad for the party and bad for the UK. I believe the rationale for that is that it's important for the party to be hydra headed, because single headed political organisms are stalinist. All of which means, I think, that the party must invent Douglas Adams' improbability drive.
I agree - it can take the MPs who can't bring themselves to support the majority of the party, and slowly wither.
> I agree that Labour is a many fractured party, and that the chance of them changing to be a modern centre left party are slim. The election of Corbyn showed a desire of many in the party to return to Labour's od socialist roots, with nationalised industries, high state borrowing, high taxation, and freebies for all.
Not many, the majority. And not socialism, social democracy.
> Unfortunately there is a new power base within the party which is middle class and more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power.
Ah, I see. You feel threatened by equality?
> To be quite honest I do not see how anybody can resolve this hydra headed infighting, let alone sell the Labour party to the general public. They had an ideal chance last election, the Tories were split, Libs offered no resistance, and the public were fed up with elections. Yes they came close, but short of every Tory candidate being pictured strangling kittens while interfering with little boys, I do not see how much more of an open goal they could have missed.
An open goal? The election that the Tories called when they didn't need to in order to increase their majority, the one that no serious political commentator was suggesting was even possible for labour to win, the one that was campaigned for whilst the leadership was under a three pronged attack from the Conservatives, a hostile media, and a large part of the parliamentary labour party? If the PLP had decided to become part of the fight to win the election instead of fighting against the members, they'd have won it.
Well one way to resolve the hydra headed infighting would be for the majority in the party to only support candidates for election who pledged to align themselves with the political objectives of the majority.
But apparently that's bad for the party and bad for the UK. I believe the rationale for that is that it's important for the party to be hydra headed, because single headed political organisms are stalinist. All of which means, I think, that the party must invent Douglas Adams' improbability drive.
> I think it's time for Labour to split, and some form of Lib/Lab centre-left-liberal party to emerge.
I agree - it can take the MPs who can't bring themselves to support the majority of the party, and slowly wither.
1
1
In reply to Ciro:
Nope, good old fashioned 70's socialism. Mind you, you label it what you want, if the majority of the Labour party want that then great, it'll keep them out of power for the foreseeable future.
> Not many, the majority. And not socialism, social democracy.
Nope, good old fashioned 70's socialism. Mind you, you label it what you want, if the majority of the Labour party want that then great, it'll keep them out of power for the foreseeable future.
> Ah, I see. You feel threatened by equality?
Oh don't be silly, now how on earth did you work that one out? You wonder why the left is in trouble when you have to resort to this child like "if you disagree with something, it must mean you're threatened by it" nonsense. > If the PLP had decided to become part of the fight to win the election instead of fighting against the members, they'd have won it.
The members ARE the PLP.> Well one way to resolve the hydra headed infighting would be for the majority in the party to only support candidates for election who pledged to align themselves with the political objectives of the majority.
If only the party could decide what they are, then those who wanted to could get behind them.> But apparently that's bad for the party and bad for the UK. I believe the rationale for that is that it's important for the party to be hydra headed, because single headed political organisms are stalinist.
It's important for the party to accept that some within it may have views that are not of teh party mainstream, or that the people they represent may want a different thing. However Momentum are determined to impose Maoist conformity.> I agree - it can take the MPs who can't bring themselves to support the majority of the party, and slowly wither.
Nice to agree on something.Post edited at 00:47
5
In reply to Big Ger:
I don't believe it was a realistic chance to win, given the vitriol in the media against JC and the lack of support from the PLP. To be honest the fact they gained so many votes shocked a lot of people including JC himself I think, never mind Kinnock, Owen Smith and Owen Jones. For me this only goes to prove how much people (and I mean the electorate) what a change to the status quo.
People wrote off students by inferring Labour bought their votes with promises, but the young people I spoke to it wasn't about university fees, it was about being sick to death of what we've had for the last few decades.
It was about finally having, what appears, a party that is aware of the issues many people face and a willingness to actually listen to the people who are voting.
Doorstepping people and agreeing with them that JC was unelectable, was simply wrong, they should have been explaining why he WAS electable and how his policies make sense.
Borrowing isn't a bad thing, all businesses do it to grow (obviously Apple and Google don't - let's say most businesses), it's what you spend the money on that counts. Why shouldn't we have a nationalised bank, or a nationalised railway, energy supplier, water, or gas? We don't have to nationalised all of it, but if you then have a choice why not.
Supposing we had a national energy supplier along side EON, EDF and all the rest of them, is you got the same service and the price was the same, why wouldn't you swap to them knowing that the profit goes back to the UK rather than abroad?
We seem to think it's OK for OUR money to be paid to a foreign government owned company (EDF is owned by the French government) so why is it so bad to pay our own government owned supplier?
Nationalised seems to work for Germany, France, etc. They own most of our utilities. Why are we so dead against it? (by we I'm including you)
> To be quite honest I do not see how anybody can resolve this hydra headed infighting, let alone sell the Labour party to the general public. They had an ideal chance last election, the Tories were split, Libs offered no resistance, and the public were fed up with elections. Yes they came close, but short of every Tory candidate being pictured strangling kittens while interfering with little boys, I do not see how much more of an open goal they could have missed.
I don't believe it was a realistic chance to win, given the vitriol in the media against JC and the lack of support from the PLP. To be honest the fact they gained so many votes shocked a lot of people including JC himself I think, never mind Kinnock, Owen Smith and Owen Jones. For me this only goes to prove how much people (and I mean the electorate) what a change to the status quo.
People wrote off students by inferring Labour bought their votes with promises, but the young people I spoke to it wasn't about university fees, it was about being sick to death of what we've had for the last few decades.
It was about finally having, what appears, a party that is aware of the issues many people face and a willingness to actually listen to the people who are voting.
Doorstepping people and agreeing with them that JC was unelectable, was simply wrong, they should have been explaining why he WAS electable and how his policies make sense.
Borrowing isn't a bad thing, all businesses do it to grow (obviously Apple and Google don't - let's say most businesses), it's what you spend the money on that counts. Why shouldn't we have a nationalised bank, or a nationalised railway, energy supplier, water, or gas? We don't have to nationalised all of it, but if you then have a choice why not.
Supposing we had a national energy supplier along side EON, EDF and all the rest of them, is you got the same service and the price was the same, why wouldn't you swap to them knowing that the profit goes back to the UK rather than abroad?
We seem to think it's OK for OUR money to be paid to a foreign government owned company (EDF is owned by the French government) so why is it so bad to pay our own government owned supplier?
Nationalised seems to work for Germany, France, etc. They own most of our utilities. Why are we so dead against it? (by we I'm including you)
5
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think you might be on the money there.
So is his increased popularity because that's starting to seem better to a lot of people than having both the wrong questions and the wrong answers, as the Tories are demonstrating?
> Arguably. As I've said before, Corbyn asks many of the right questions and comes up with most of the wrong answers.
I think you might be on the money there.
So is his increased popularity because that's starting to seem better to a lot of people than having both the wrong questions and the wrong answers, as the Tories are demonstrating?
3
In reply to Big Ger:
It's not the disagreeing that makes me question whether you feel threatened, more the massively inflated importance you placed on it. Whilst these things are clearly issues that are cared about, if you genuinely believe the movement behind the current labour leadership is "more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power" than social justice, ending austerity, the privatisation rip-off, etc., it suggests the prospect genuinely worries you.
Eh? The labour party has well over half a million members, the PLP can meet in a large room.
You'll be happy that momentum are driving that decision then?
> Oh don't be silly, now how on earth did you work that one out? You wonder why the left is in trouble when you have to resort to this child like "if you disagree with something, it must mean you're threatened by it" nonsense.
It's not the disagreeing that makes me question whether you feel threatened, more the massively inflated importance you placed on it. Whilst these things are clearly issues that are cared about, if you genuinely believe the movement behind the current labour leadership is "more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power" than social justice, ending austerity, the privatisation rip-off, etc., it suggests the prospect genuinely worries you.
> The members ARE the PLP.
Eh? The labour party has well over half a million members, the PLP can meet in a large room.
> If only the party could decide what they are, then those who wanted to could get behind them.
You'll be happy that momentum are driving that decision then?
3
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm not sure where you're going with this one... You agree with the conclusion that labour must avoid the trap of coming to a weak centrist position and instead focus on radical left wing reform?
> FYI
> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/29/question-labour-must-answer-further-ahead-poll
I'm not sure where you're going with this one... You agree with the conclusion that labour must avoid the trap of coming to a weak centrist position and instead focus on radical left wing reform?
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Nationalisation -BAD
Privatisation - GOOD
Except we keep paying, and they keep taking the profits
"On Wednesday 29 November, the government effectively bailed out a failed privatisation to the tune of millions of pounds, with taxpayers’ money. But to make matters worse, its solution is to part-privatise even more of the service.
Money for nothing?
The East Coast mainline was a nationalised rail service until 2015. Then the Conservative-led coalition government sold it off to the private sector. It has been jointly operated by Stagecoach and Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains ever since.
Nationalisation -BAD
Privatisation - GOOD
Except we keep paying, and they keep taking the profits
"On Wednesday 29 November, the government effectively bailed out a failed privatisation to the tune of millions of pounds, with taxpayers’ money. But to make matters worse, its solution is to part-privatise even more of the service.
Money for nothing?
The East Coast mainline was a nationalised rail service until 2015. Then the Conservative-led coalition government sold it off to the private sector. It has been jointly operated by Stagecoach and Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains ever since.
2
In reply to krikoman:
I'm against it as I worked in the nationalised Steel, and Rail, industries.
Just because Germany does it, it doesn't mean it would work in the UK.
> Nationalised seems to work for Germany, France, etc. They own most of our utilities. Why are we so dead against it? (by we I'm including you)
I'm against it as I worked in the nationalised Steel, and Rail, industries.
Just because Germany does it, it doesn't mean it would work in the UK.
Post edited at 22:33
4
In reply to Ciro:
LOL!! Thanks for my early morning chuckle, by "massively inflated importance"' you mean this one solitary sentence I posted about it? This one;
You see that as cause to accuse me of "feeling threatened" by it?
Get a grip.
Oh, stop it, you'll have me in stitches! Why the hell would it worry me? If it keeps Labour out of power it suits me down to the ground. I think you're flailing about wildly here...
But still, get your cliches in when you can eh?
The PLP use dot be there to represent the membership.
> It's not the disagreeing that makes me question whether you feel threatened, more the massively inflated importance you placed on it.
LOL!! Thanks for my early morning chuckle, by "massively inflated importance"' you mean this one solitary sentence I posted about it? This one;
> Unfortunately there is a new power base within the party which is middle class and more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power.
You see that as cause to accuse me of "feeling threatened" by it?
Get a grip.
> Whilst these things are clearly issues that are cared about, if you genuinely believe the movement behind the current labour leadership is "more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power" than social justice, ending austerity, the privatisation rip-off, etc., it suggests the prospect genuinely worries you.
Oh, stop it, you'll have me in stitches! Why the hell would it worry me? If it keeps Labour out of power it suits me down to the ground. I think you're flailing about wildly here...
But still, get your cliches in when you can eh?
> Eh? The labour party has well over half a million members, the PLP can meet in a large room.
The PLP use dot be there to represent the membership.
> You'll be happy that momentum are driving that decision then?
Loving it, guarantees more years of Tory victory.Post edited at 22:41
5
In reply to Big Ger:
Yes but how long ago was that? You don't think attitudes have changed since then?
But it isn't just Germany is it? We seem to be the only country in Europe (at least at the moment) who anti-nationalisation.
Again I have to ask why are you happy for other countries nationalised industries to own ours but not us? It makes no sense to me.
Are they so much better than us that only they can make it work?
> I'm against it as I worked in the nationalised Steel, and Rail, industries.
Yes but how long ago was that? You don't think attitudes have changed since then?
> Just because Germany does it, it doesn't mean it would work in the UK.
But it isn't just Germany is it? We seem to be the only country in Europe (at least at the moment) who anti-nationalisation.
Again I have to ask why are you happy for other countries nationalised industries to own ours but not us? It makes no sense to me.
Are they so much better than us that only they can make it work?
4
In reply to Big Ger:
You're welcome
That's the one. When you said you said they were "more concerned", I thought you'd inflated the importance of the issue to above the things they are most concerned about. If you really meant "less concerned" you should probably have said that.
We all see things through unconscious biases, for example my fear of the stripping of our state assets will lead me to see Tory voters as Jeremy Hunts, even though most of them probably aren't.
I see. It's very nice of you to spend your time on the internet trying to convince labour voters to change the party's direction from that which suits you to that which wouldn't
> LOL!! Thanks for my early morning chuckle
You're welcome
> , by "massively inflated importance"' you mean this one solitary sentence I posted about it? This one;
> > Unfortunately there is a new power base within the party which is middle class and more concerned with minority rights, sexual /gender politics, and paternalistic power.
That's the one. When you said you said they were "more concerned", I thought you'd inflated the importance of the issue to above the things they are most concerned about. If you really meant "less concerned" you should probably have said that.
> You see that as cause to accuse me of "feeling threatened" by it?
We all see things through unconscious biases, for example my fear of the stripping of our state assets will lead me to see Tory voters as Jeremy Hunts, even though most of them probably aren't.
> Oh, stop it, you'll have me in stitches! Why the hell would it worry me? If it keeps Labour out of power it suits me down to the ground. I think you're flailing about wildly here...
I see. It's very nice of you to spend your time on the internet trying to convince labour voters to change the party's direction from that which suits you to that which wouldn't
3
In reply to Big Ger:
You like quotes, here's one from a Norwegian, you know the place, a den of strident communism. The one where they used their oil revenue to provide for the future rather than pissing them away like we did.
From the perspective of Norway, however, the idea that Corbyn is a communist is certainly laughable. History professor Jonas Fossli Gjersø wrote in Open Democracy:
As a Scandinavian who has spent more than a decade living in Britain, nothing has made me feel more foreign… From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat. His policy-platform places him squarely in the Norwegian Labour Party from which the last leader is such a widely respected establishment figure that upon resignation he became the current Secretary-General of NATO.
Yet, here in the United Kingdom a politician who makes similar policy-proposals, indeed those that form the very bedrock of the Nordic-model, is brandished as an extremist of the hard-left and a danger to society.
So who is right? Is the Norwegian Labour movement some dangerous extremist group that unknowingly has occupied the furthest leftist fringe of the political spectrum? If so, a casual glance at the UN’s Human Development Index would suggest that Norway certainly has not suffered as a result of successive Labour-dominated governments. Or is it, perhaps, that the British media’s portrayal of Corbyn, and by extent his policies are somewhat exaggerated and verging on the realm of character assassination rather than objective analysis and journalism?
> Nope, good old fashioned 70's socialism. Mind you, you label it what you want, if the majority of the Labour party want that then great, it'll keep them out of power for the foreseeable future.
You like quotes, here's one from a Norwegian, you know the place, a den of strident communism. The one where they used their oil revenue to provide for the future rather than pissing them away like we did.
From the perspective of Norway, however, the idea that Corbyn is a communist is certainly laughable. History professor Jonas Fossli Gjersø wrote in Open Democracy:
As a Scandinavian who has spent more than a decade living in Britain, nothing has made me feel more foreign… From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat. His policy-platform places him squarely in the Norwegian Labour Party from which the last leader is such a widely respected establishment figure that upon resignation he became the current Secretary-General of NATO.
Yet, here in the United Kingdom a politician who makes similar policy-proposals, indeed those that form the very bedrock of the Nordic-model, is brandished as an extremist of the hard-left and a danger to society.
So who is right? Is the Norwegian Labour movement some dangerous extremist group that unknowingly has occupied the furthest leftist fringe of the political spectrum? If so, a casual glance at the UN’s Human Development Index would suggest that Norway certainly has not suffered as a result of successive Labour-dominated governments. Or is it, perhaps, that the British media’s portrayal of Corbyn, and by extent his policies are somewhat exaggerated and verging on the realm of character assassination rather than objective analysis and journalism?
Post edited at 11:29
6
In reply to krikoman:
When you look at the history it's worse than that... it was originally privatised, but after two successive operators pulled out of their contracts due to financial difficulties we took back over in 2009. The not-for-profit government owned company we set up to run it (Directly Operated Railways) was a massive success.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/26/east-coast-mainline-why-pri...
[The last four years, according to DOR's own accounts, published this month, have been an extraordinary success.
The first half of this year has seen levels of punctuality not achieved by any operator of the east coast mainline "since records in their current form began", although poor weather affected the latter part of last year. The company has won 13 industry awards since April 2012, including that of being Britain's top employer. There has been a 4.2% increase in ticket sales year-on-year, £208.7m returned to the taxpayer during the year in premium and dividend payments, and a record level of customer satisfaction.
And while Virgin, on the west coast, has received £179.6m in revenue support from the government since 2009 and a £1.2bn network grant, DOR has had no revenue support and a lesser, £980m network grant. Back on the 17.30 service, Tracy Sowersby put it succinctly: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
The answer from the current transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, launching the privatisation on Friday, was that he wanted to see a "revitalised east coast railway, one that both rekindles the spirit of competition for customers on this great route to Scotland and competes with the west coast on speed, quality and customer service".]
So succesful in fact, that we made it an attractive proposition to the private companies again, so we sold it off to allow them to cream a couple of years profit before we bail them out again when the going gets tough.
And what did we do with the DOR? Replaced it with a consortium of private professional services companies, to ensure we can't be embarrassed by a government run operation being so successful in the future.
Privatise the profits and socialise the losses, and don't let the national interest get in the way.
> Nationalisation -BAD
> Privatisation - GOOD
> Except we keep paying, and they keep taking the profits
> "On Wednesday 29 November, the government effectively bailed out a failed privatisation to the tune of millions of pounds, with taxpayers’ money. But to make matters worse, its solution is to part-privatise even more of the service.
> Money for nothing?
> The East Coast mainline was a nationalised rail service until 2015. Then the Conservative-led coalition government sold it off to the private sector. It has been jointly operated by Stagecoach and Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains ever since.
When you look at the history it's worse than that... it was originally privatised, but after two successive operators pulled out of their contracts due to financial difficulties we took back over in 2009. The not-for-profit government owned company we set up to run it (Directly Operated Railways) was a massive success.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/26/east-coast-mainline-why-pri...
[The last four years, according to DOR's own accounts, published this month, have been an extraordinary success.
The first half of this year has seen levels of punctuality not achieved by any operator of the east coast mainline "since records in their current form began", although poor weather affected the latter part of last year. The company has won 13 industry awards since April 2012, including that of being Britain's top employer. There has been a 4.2% increase in ticket sales year-on-year, £208.7m returned to the taxpayer during the year in premium and dividend payments, and a record level of customer satisfaction.
And while Virgin, on the west coast, has received £179.6m in revenue support from the government since 2009 and a £1.2bn network grant, DOR has had no revenue support and a lesser, £980m network grant. Back on the 17.30 service, Tracy Sowersby put it succinctly: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
The answer from the current transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, launching the privatisation on Friday, was that he wanted to see a "revitalised east coast railway, one that both rekindles the spirit of competition for customers on this great route to Scotland and competes with the west coast on speed, quality and customer service".]
So succesful in fact, that we made it an attractive proposition to the private companies again, so we sold it off to allow them to cream a couple of years profit before we bail them out again when the going gets tough.
And what did we do with the DOR? Replaced it with a consortium of private professional services companies, to ensure we can't be embarrassed by a government run operation being so successful in the future.
Privatise the profits and socialise the losses, and don't let the national interest get in the way.
6
In reply to Big Ger:
Just something for your delectation G me old mate...
http://s983.photobucket.com/user/ajplusk/media/Random/P1040530.jpg.html?sor...
I signed up just after the recent near miss. You dinosaurs will be extinct soon
Just something for your delectation G me old mate...
http://s983.photobucket.com/user/ajplusk/media/Random/P1040530.jpg.html?sor...
I signed up just after the recent near miss. You dinosaurs will be extinct soon
In reply to krikoman:
Yes, but is it worth the risk?
> Yes but how long ago was that? You don't think attitudes have changed since then?
Yes, but is it worth the risk?
> But it isn't just Germany is it? We seem to be the only country in Europe (at least at the moment) who anti-nationalisation.
Ahead of the pack as ever.> Again I have to ask why are you happy for other countries nationalised industries to own ours but not us? It makes no sense to me. Are they so much better than us that only they can make it work?
By "make it work" you mean "pay huge subsidies"?In reply to Lusk:
Comrade Lusk, your donation to the party funds will stand you in good stead, you will have extra gruel each day when Chairman Corbyn takes power!
> Just something for your delectation G me old mate...
> I signed up just after the recent near miss. You dinosaurs will be extinct soon
Comrade Lusk, your donation to the party funds will stand you in good stead, you will have extra gruel each day when Chairman Corbyn takes power!
In reply to Ciro:
No I mean more concerned, as in "obsessed by the trendy issue of the week". (Is it Grenfell, or Wienstein, or Libyans this week?) Which is not a basis for building an electable party on.
I'm all heart me.
> That's the one. When you said you said they were "more concerned", I thought you'd inflated the importance of the issue to above the things they are most concerned about. If you really meant "less concerned" you should probably have said that.
No I mean more concerned, as in "obsessed by the trendy issue of the week". (Is it Grenfell, or Wienstein, or Libyans this week?) Which is not a basis for building an electable party on.
> I see. It's very nice of you to spend your time on the internet trying to convince labour voters to change the party's direction from that which suits you to that which wouldn't
I'm all heart me.
Post edited at 22:40
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Comrade G, you'll be on gruel bowl cleaning duty if you've got any spare time from servicing our mighty leader.
Otherwise, you'll be looking at five or six winters polishing rocks on Ingleborough summit in a loin cloth.
Comrade G, you'll be on gruel bowl cleaning duty if you've got any spare time from servicing our mighty leader.
Otherwise, you'll be looking at five or six winters polishing rocks on Ingleborough summit in a loin cloth.
In reply to Big Ger:
I worked for the nationalised rail industry and I now work for the privatised rail industry (well, actually, I work for the nationalised German railway industry). My income has increased exponentially because the Conservative government that introduced it was too stupid to see that carving up a state monopoly into little bits would create a free market for train drivers. I'm not sure how that benefits the public purse but I'm pretty glad I work a four day week and earn enough to get into the 40% tax bracket. I still hate what the Tory b@stards are doing to our country though.
Feel free to disagree..
I worked for the nationalised rail industry and I now work for the privatised rail industry (well, actually, I work for the nationalised German railway industry). My income has increased exponentially because the Conservative government that introduced it was too stupid to see that carving up a state monopoly into little bits would create a free market for train drivers. I'm not sure how that benefits the public purse but I'm pretty glad I work a four day week and earn enough to get into the 40% tax bracket. I still hate what the Tory b@stards are doing to our country though.
Feel free to disagree..
5
In reply to Tony Jones:
I hope everybody remembers this the next time train drivers go on strike for yet more !
> a free market for train drivers. .... I work a four day week and earn enough to get into the 40% tax bracket.
I hope everybody remembers this the next time train drivers go on strike for yet more !
1
2
In reply to fred99:
It's market forces Fred (it's a Tory thing but, strangely, they only seem to approve when it applies to a CEO's remuneration).
There seems to be a greater demand for train drivers than there are suitable (experienced) candidates. That, when combined with an astute craft union, has done much for drivers' pay since John Major's grand plan to privatise British Rail. If you don't approve then maybe a counter-intuitive vote for a Corbyn-led labour government might have an effect as, if everyone works for the same employer, the competition element is removed from future pay negotiations. In the longer term it's highly likely that trains will not need a 'driver' in the conventional sense and, if the role is to survive, a canny game will need to be played to align train drivers more closely with airline pilots than, say, the print workers of the 1980s.
(in answer to Big G's remark about being 'against' nationalised industries because he worked in them, I have to say that I had a ball despite the low pay. Shifts by Chris Meredith is a great evocation of working in the declining Welsh steel industry of the eighties and might be of interest.)
It's market forces Fred (it's a Tory thing but, strangely, they only seem to approve when it applies to a CEO's remuneration).
There seems to be a greater demand for train drivers than there are suitable (experienced) candidates. That, when combined with an astute craft union, has done much for drivers' pay since John Major's grand plan to privatise British Rail. If you don't approve then maybe a counter-intuitive vote for a Corbyn-led labour government might have an effect as, if everyone works for the same employer, the competition element is removed from future pay negotiations. In the longer term it's highly likely that trains will not need a 'driver' in the conventional sense and, if the role is to survive, a canny game will need to be played to align train drivers more closely with airline pilots than, say, the print workers of the 1980s.
(in answer to Big G's remark about being 'against' nationalised industries because he worked in them, I have to say that I had a ball despite the low pay. Shifts by Chris Meredith is a great evocation of working in the declining Welsh steel industry of the eighties and might be of interest.)
Post edited at 13:06
In reply to Big Ger:
By make it work I mean have control over other countries utilities, and be able to hold them to ransom.
I'd still like to know why you think it's OK for foreign nations to own our infrastructure but it's bad for our own nation to own them. Isn't this partly to blame / one of the reasons for Brexit?
> By "make it work" you mean "pay huge subsidies"?
By make it work I mean have control over other countries utilities, and be able to hold them to ransom.
I'd still like to know why you think it's OK for foreign nations to own our infrastructure but it's bad for our own nation to own them. Isn't this partly to blame / one of the reasons for Brexit?
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...