Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1303304306308309335

Posts

  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    They're less electable than they otherwise would have been. Anyway don't worry, I'll keep up the good work for the sake of the country. It's worked so far.


    Which country is that?

    The USA?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shocking that a clearly and plainly antisemitic leadership has not already been deposed.
    It is, although given the membership base I don't think they would be replaced anything significantly better. That said, if them staying put keeps that shower of censored out of power then every cloud...

    Don't think there's any silver lining in the country's largest political party being a home for antisemitism.
    Leopards and spots. Would you want them to be in power or not?

    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.
    As mentioned above in reply to Rick: given the membership base, do you really think we would get anything better to replace them?

    Possibly. Change the leader and the membership will change, as demonstrated across all parties. There are plenty of people who could do better, again in more than one party.
    Current membership elects his replacement so you can't just impose someone more mainstream on them. As I said, main point is that this situation keeps them pretty much unelectable, which is the whole point of this thread...

    I fear they are not as unelectable as all that.
    They're less electable than they otherwise would have been. Anyway don't worry, I'll keep up the good work for the sake of the country. It's worked so far.

    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,305
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,305
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,352
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.
    and then the next thing you know
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.

    Arguably the shambles in the Conservative party is what has allowed the far left infiltration (and with it the antisemitism) to take hold. It's convinced them that they can win on that platform, and it's looking not completely unrealistic.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,305
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.

    Arguably the shambles in the Conservative party is what has allowed the far left infiltration (and with it the antisemitism) to take hold. It's convinced them that they can win on that platform, and it's looking not completely unrealistic.
    The far left infiltration of Labour goes back to at least 2015 (when Corbyn was elected leader), before any of the Tory troubles began. They think they can win mainly because they are deluded lefties. Although I'm not sure what other sort of leftie there is :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.

    Arguably the shambles in the Conservative party is what has allowed the far left infiltration (and with it the antisemitism) to take hold. It's convinced them that they can win on that platform, and it's looking not completely unrealistic.
    The far left infiltration of Labour goes back to at least 2015 (when Corbyn was elected leader), before any of the Tory troubles began. They think they can win mainly because they are deluded lefties. Although I'm not sure what other sort of leftie there is :)
    2015 is about when things started to go pear-shaped for both parties. The thing is the Corbynites are now in with a shout, which is a grim state of affairs.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • SecretSqirrelSecretSqirrel Posts: 1,251
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    rjsterry wrote:
    ... The thing is the Corbynites are now in with a shout, which is a grim state of affairs.

    It's a grim state of affairs anyway.

    Reading about the 60's it's amazing how much sanity there was back then. Corruption was just as rife but politics had a semblance of rationality on both sides of the floor. Even Wedgebenn wasn't such a grade A loon as we have now.

    I blame the peace dividend; we should have stuck with the cold war. It was simple and it worked. Fear was merely about being fried.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,305
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.

    Arguably the shambles in the Conservative party is what has allowed the far left infiltration (and with it the antisemitism) to take hold. It's convinced them that they can win on that platform, and it's looking not completely unrealistic.
    The far left infiltration of Labour goes back to at least 2015 (when Corbyn was elected leader), before any of the Tory troubles began. They think they can win mainly because they are deluded lefties. Although I'm not sure what other sort of leftie there is :)
    2015 is about when things started to go pear-shaped for both parties. The thing is the Corbynites are now in with a shout, which is a grim state of affairs.
    I wouldn't be so sure. They peaked at the last election and still lost. And are now going down the toilet where they belong:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-antisemitism-corbyn-watson-formby-jewish-ehrc-investigation-a9006466.html
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,436
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.

    Arguably the shambles in the Conservative party is what has allowed the far left infiltration (and with it the antisemitism) to take hold. It's convinced them that they can win on that platform, and it's looking not completely unrealistic.
    The far left infiltration of Labour goes back to at least 2015 (when Corbyn was elected leader), before any of the Tory troubles began. They think they can win mainly because they are deluded lefties. Although I'm not sure what other sort of leftie there is :)
    2015 is about when things started to go pear-shaped for both parties. The thing is the Corbynites are now in with a shout, which is a grim state of affairs.
    I wouldn't be so sure. They peaked at the last election and still lost. And are now going down the toilet where they belong:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-antisemitism-corbyn-watson-formby-jewish-ehrc-investigation-a9006466.html

    how would you describe their trajectory since 2015 compared to the other major party
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,305
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.

    Arguably the shambles in the Conservative party is what has allowed the far left infiltration (and with it the antisemitism) to take hold. It's convinced them that they can win on that platform, and it's looking not completely unrealistic.
    The far left infiltration of Labour goes back to at least 2015 (when Corbyn was elected leader), before any of the Tory troubles began. They think they can win mainly because they are deluded lefties. Although I'm not sure what other sort of leftie there is :)
    2015 is about when things started to go pear-shaped for both parties. The thing is the Corbynites are now in with a shout, which is a grim state of affairs.
    I wouldn't be so sure. They peaked at the last election and still lost. And are now going down the toilet where they belong:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-antisemitism-corbyn-watson-formby-jewish-ehrc-investigation-a9006466.html

    how would you describe their trajectory since 2015 compared to the other major party
    No idea, but the main point as stated before is that they are not in power and stay that way.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,436
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'd rather the opposition - whoever that is - were seen as electable; it keeps the governing party focused. Being marginally less of a shower is not good enough.
    If only your lot were a bit more successful then you could be the opposition :wink:

    Doesn't answer the point, does it. And yes, they've been riding on the mediocrity bandwagon until recently, too.

    And that's the difference: I don't see them as "my lot" they are just the party closest to my views at the moment.
    What I can do to make the Labour party more electable is pretty limited even if I were minded to do so - which I'm not :) So I'm simply pointing out a potentially preferable alternative...

    You don't need to make them more electable, the Conservative party are doing all the work for them. It's proving a struggle for Labour to be even worse, but they're just about managing.

    Arguably the shambles in the Conservative party is what has allowed the far left infiltration (and with it the antisemitism) to take hold. It's convinced them that they can win on that platform, and it's looking not completely unrealistic.
    The far left infiltration of Labour goes back to at least 2015 (when Corbyn was elected leader), before any of the Tory troubles began. They think they can win mainly because they are deluded lefties. Although I'm not sure what other sort of leftie there is :)
    2015 is about when things started to go pear-shaped for both parties. The thing is the Corbynites are now in with a shout, which is a grim state of affairs.
    I wouldn't be so sure. They peaked at the last election and still lost. And are now going down the toilet where they belong:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-antisemitism-corbyn-watson-formby-jewish-ehrc-investigation-a9006466.html

    how would you describe their trajectory since 2015 compared to the other major party
    No idea, but the main point as stated before is that they are not in power and stay that way.

    well Tories had an overall majority in 2015 election since then they have lost their majority and are about to get their very own joke candidate as leader. Most observers don't expect him to be a success and for the downward trajectory to continue. It could be argued that in comparison Labour are doing alright. It could also be argued that they are dragging each other down to their level.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,352
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    No idea, but the main point as stated before is that they are not in power and stay that way.

    Both main parties are engaging in an interesting experiment in the area of political party as football team. How bad does a party have to get before a "fan" decides that it's no longer "their team".
    and then the next thing you know
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,436
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    No idea, but the main point as stated before is that they are not in power and stay that way.

    Both main parties are engaging in an interesting experiment in the area of political party as football team. How bad does a party have to get before a "fan" decides that it's no longer "their team".

    or they stop turning up (voting)
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    No idea, but the main point as stated before is that they are not in power and stay that way.

    Both main parties are engaging in an interesting experiment in the area of political party as football team. How bad does a party have to get before a "fan" decides that it's no longer "their team".

    or they stop turning up (voting)

    Which leads to results like the European elections, where highly motivated , single-issue parties clean up due to the lack of competition.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.
  • SecretSqirrelSecretSqirrel Posts: 1,251
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    edited 17 July
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    Ah, right. Seemed like the obvious answer but wondered if you were making some other point. Completely agree, but they don't seem to want to and it's the latter that is of most concern.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,352
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?
    and then the next thing you know
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 13,544
    D_rGpdhX4AAG_-j?format=jpg&name=medium
    "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"
  • SecretSqirrelSecretSqirrel Posts: 1,251
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?

    Why would the left want to destroy the Labour Party?
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 13,544
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?

    Why would the left want to destroy the Labour Party?

    Because it's not Left enough for them.
    "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"
  • SecretSqirrelSecretSqirrel Posts: 1,251
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?

    Why would the left want to destroy the Labour Party?

    Because it's not Left enough for them.

    #ToriesforCorbyn
    That is what this thread is about.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,801 Lives Here
    I guess if you’re racist you’re spoilt for choice.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,268
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?

    Why would the left want to destroy the Labour Party?

    Because it's not Left enough for them.

    #ToriesforCorbyn
    That is what this thread is about.

    I think you might have massively, massively over-estimated the impact a few Tory infiltrators have had. It has been investigated at some length and there really weren't that many of them. This is a problem of leadership.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • SecretSqirrelSecretSqirrel Posts: 1,251
    rjsterry wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?

    Why would the left want to destroy the Labour Party?

    Because it's not Left enough for them.

    #ToriesforCorbyn
    That is what this thread is about.

    I think you might have massively, massively over-estimated the impact a few Tory infiltrators have tyhad. It has been investigated at some length and there really weren't that many of them. This is a problem of leadership.

    You are right. I was being cheeky about the thread. As stated above I agree that poor leadership has been exposed.
Sign In or Register to comment.