BerwickMad Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Nothing much to get upset about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Utterly desperate stuff from the utter scum.[emoji38] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Utterly desperate stuff from the utter scum.[emoji38] Yet this is what they send us. It's really poor. They clearly have nothing but contempt for members who haven't bought into the Corbyn machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Nothing disgraceful in that email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 10 hours ago, BerwickMad said: Another disgraceful email from the Corbyn camp this morning. 53 minutes ago, BerwickMad said: If you regard that as 'disgraceful' then you must be very easily offended. Or maybe you're just looking to be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Yet this is what they send us. It's really poor. They clearly have nothing but contempt for members who haven't bought into the Corbyn machine. I really struggle to figure out who it's aimed at. The complaints levelled at them is that they're preaching to the converted, and all that email does is do more of the same. Is that email really going to convince anyone who is undecided to back Jeremy? Or just stoke up more 'outrage' in his supporters?It's more evidence to me that they're totally unsuited to lead the party. It's a leadership election and they can't even reach out to people who aren't convinced by them. What's it going to be like come general election time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Whether those things are true or not, it's a million miles from "disgraceful", as you asserted earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Whether those things are true or not, it's a million miles from "disgraceful", as you asserted earlier. I disagree. Defending that Orgreave campaigner then saying that Jeremy wants to eliminate all forms of abuse is, in my opinion, disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, BerwickMad said: I disagree. Defending that Orgreave campaigner then saying that Jeremy wants to eliminate all forms of abuse is, in my opinion, disgraceful. Really, disgraceful? Get a grip. You are the epitome of the problem within Labour - looking for someone to blame instead of accepting the need to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Fucking hell. I thought I was sensitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 I don't think so. If I was in a branch meeting and a fellow member was described as a dirty hypocrite, a haemorrhoid salesman and a b*****d, because they were a 'Blairite', I would consider that totally unacceptable. If it happened in my branch I would immediately end the meeting if they didn't leave. I'd expect them to excluded from the party. If the leader of the party then sent an email to the whole membership claiming this was somehow unfair, then I'd be disgusted, especially if they followed it by saying they wanted to end all forms of abuse.It's nothing about being over sensitive, it's just not the way members should be behaving or describing other members. I'd find it totally unacceptable in any organisation tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 I really struggle to figure out who it's aimed at. The complaints levelled at them is that they're preaching to the converted, and all that email does is do more of the same. Is that email really going to convince anyone who is undecided to back Jeremy? Or just stoke up more 'outrage' in his supporters?It's more evidence to me that they're totally unsuited to lead the party. It's a leadership election and they can't even reach out to people who aren't convinced by them. What's it going to be like come general election time? Their priority is winning this election. They obviously have enough supporters from last year so they don't need to win over those within the party who hate them. They need to sure up their vote from last year. That is the winning strategy. If you really want a leader who wins then you need to applaud this strategy. This is not the general election and as for the centre right of the party, this fight has got way too dirty to play nice. If corbyn wins, those who don't support him will have a decision to make.Until then, they just need to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 25 minutes ago, BerwickMad said: I don't think so. If I was in a branch meeting and a fellow member was described as a dirty hypocrite, a haemorrhoid salesman and a b*****d, because they were a 'Blairite', I would consider that totally unacceptable. If it happened in my branch I would immediately end the meeting if they didn't leave. I'd expect them to excluded from the party. If the leader of the party then sent an email to the whole membership claiming this was somehow unfair, then I'd be disgusted, especially if they followed it by saying they wanted to end all forms of abuse. It's nothing about being over sensitive, it's just not the way members should be behaving or describing other members. I'd find it totally unacceptable in any organisation tbh. What galls me about the Corbynistas is their failure to accept that for all the control freakery of the Blair/Mandelson years (a lot of it downright sinister), the like of Corbyn & especially Dennis Skinner were happy to largely toe the line & remain in the party, paying their annual subs & telling the electorate to vote for them (& take their wages in Parliament) when all was said & done. Now the shoe is on the other foot, they're anxious to intimidate & push out anyone who will not accept their line right now that Corbyn is without blemish, & that's before they've even got into any positions of power. Whatever else, it doesn't paint a very reassuring picture for your ordinary elector in the street of life in Britain if they ever got in. The Tories fight like a bad Tom & Jerry cartoon meanwhile over Brexit but when the dust settles they still manage to work together with the minimum of rancour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 What galls me about the Corbynistas is their failure to accept that for all the control freakery of the Blair/Mandelson years (a lot of it downright sinister), the like of Corbyn & especially Dennis Skinner were happy to largely toe the line & remain in the party, paying their annual subs & telling the electorate to vote for them (& take their wages in Parliament) when all was said & done. Now the shoe is on the other foot, they're anxious to intimidate & push out anyone who will not accept their line right now that Corbyn is without blemish, & that's before they've even got into any positions of power. Whatever else, it doesn't paint a very reassuring picture for your ordinary elector in the street of life in Britain if they ever got in. The Tories fight like a bad Tom & Jerry cartoon meanwhile over Brexit but when the dust settles they still manage to work together with the minimum of rancour. The difference is that corbyn and co never tried to enact a coup. Their attacks were principled and up front. This is very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 2 hours ago, pandarilla said: The difference is that corbyn and co never tried to enact a coup. In April 1988 when he was leader of Socialist Campaign Group he forced Kinnock to get nominations by MPs (something he now refused to do) while they put up Tony Benn to replace him. The election was held in September of that year. As you consistently seem to expose your total ignorance of the history of the Labour party, I suggest people should just ignore your waffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 In April 1988 when he was leader of Socialist Campaign Group he forced Kinnock to get nominations by MPs (something he now refused to do) while they put up Tony Benn to replace him. The election was held in September of that year. As you consistently seem to expose your total ignorance of the history of the Labour party, I suggest people should just ignore your waffling. Firstly, I hadn't heard of this corbyn-led leadership challenge and so bow to your superior knowledge of labour party history. I did know that Benn had tried to challenge various leaders at various times so I'm not exactly surprised.Secondly, are you happy describing this 1988 leadership election as a coup? That seems to be a curious definition but again I'm happy to be educated.Thirdly, I was clearly referring to the 'Blair/Mandelson control freakery' that was mentioned in the post above. Corbyn openly criticised his 'own' government and I'm sure used various political party and conference methods to oppose the leader. Again, are you equating that with what we've seen from the likes of kinnock the younger since corbyn was elected?Fourthly, a minor point but important one; you say he 'forced' kinnock to get the nominations? Having read a little to get caught up (interesting that the first thing popping up is a kinnock article from this year in the new statesman) it appears there was absolutely no doubt about kinnock getting those nominations. Benn and his supporters legitimately forced him to fight a leadership election. I'm pretty certain they never forced him to get the nominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Jamie RossVerified account @JamieRoss7 15m Owen Smith asked on #GMS if he would oppose #indyref2. "No, of course not," he replies. Oh dear. Does someone want to tell Kezia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Interesting question sent to Jeremy Corbyn for the Pink News Q&A tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.