Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, feral chile said:

I just wondered, IF it was, would you think that Corbyn was starting to get the whole electability thing?

Nope. He's doing it his own way. And his own way is about allowing the tories to damage the working classes as much as possible, instead of trying to stop them doing it.

He's selling out the people he's meant to represent in the hope it will deliver him to power, rather than offering something better himself which will take him to power.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, feral chile said:

I joined a social media group and I was amazed how angry and betrayed they all were. How come they didn't know his views?

I don't know if they were labour voters, however, as it was a Brexit related group.

Echo chambers, and denial of facts in front of them.

zahid is a great example of this. Despite 40 years of brexit voting by Jez - and including a call for a50 the day after the vote, whipping MPs to vote for a50, and many statements from him about "we're definitely leaving" (including SM & CU) - zahid gives Corbyn the full benefit of the doubt, and says he's either biding his time or that the member's views will have him change.

Yet if he's biding him time, when will that time be? Things look stronger for May with brexit now than they ever have.

And the members were told they weren't allowed to talk about brexit, and they went along with it like sheep.

Meanwhile Jez has demonstrated that it's his view and only his view and nothing of the party that really counts - with stuff such as what he told Eavis about nukes.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh yes you have.

Care to say which principles I've said they should give up?

As ever, you just love the opportunity to take a pop at me with vacuous guff.

[zahidf]

 

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Care to say which principles I've said they should give up?

NO, but I can quote you approving of the general notion of abandoning principles..

Quote

Every sane political party should be able to recognise that there's principles they hold that go beyond what current opinion will tolerate, and should know that high ideals like those need to be parked so that they can get on with the things they are able to do.

 

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=172984&content_commentid=4907985

 

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

As ever, you just love the opportunity to take a pop at me with vacuous guff.

 

[feral chile]

I know I said I didn't want to revisit the rebels debate, but this is where I feel the blame for a lot of the violent threats lies, and Soubry, in my opinion, nails it, without resorting to accusing rivals of being responsible:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anna-soubry-receives-messages-calling-for-her-to-be-hanged-as-a-traitor/ar-BBGMZt4?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
 

Quote

 

Soubry told the Guardian her main worry was for her staff: “As with all members of parliament they have access to my emails, they take the phone calls. So they have to read all this stuff. I think people forget it’s the parliamentary staff who feel even more intimidated than members of parliament.”

The media had “fuelled a lot of this”, Soubry argued: “The words in certain newspapers are replicated – so ‘mutineer’ is then in an email saying: ‘We all know what happens to mutineers, let’s see you hanging from a lamppost or a tree.’

“I got an email from somebody yesterday saying: ‘In the past, traitors were taken out and shot.’ It’s appalling. I’m sure some of these people, if they took a step back, would actually be appalled themselves. But they are being whipped up into a frenzy by certain sections of the media that have frankly lost the plot.”

While the abuse came from a tiny minority of people, Soubry said, it seemed indicative of deep divisions in the country that were not being addressed.

“It’s the job of government to do everything they can to bring people together, and it’s the responsibility of everybody in public life to build a more tolerant society,” she said.

 

This is the sort of stuff I want labour to be saying.

Edited December 16, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

NO

Oh, so you lied. who'd have thought it.

 

Quote

 but I can quote you approving of the general notion of abandoning principles..

'parking' a principle that doesn't have the support to get implemented is not abandoning anything.

It's recognising that it's a battle that cannot be won at the current time.

But hey, if you want to say that Jez has abandoned his desire to abolish nukes, feel free to tell him that's what you think he's done.

There's fuck all point saying you'll reorganise all of society if you can't even organise your ideas of how it might be done.

Edited December 16, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I know I said I didn't want to revisit the rebels debate, but this is where I feel the blame for a lot of the violent threats lies, and Soubry, in my opinion, nails it, without resorting to accusing rivals of being responsible:

just wondering why you're suddenly so hung up on threats to Soubry, yet just a week or two ago you spent a lot of time arguing that threats to Eagle were an insignificance that couldn't be mentioned unless she had full proof of every aspect of them...?

And I notice that you're happy for Soubry to talk about how some have stirred the pot to cause it to happen, yet that was a damning crime when Eagle did the same.

How odd.

The attackers of each might (do) come from different sides of the political spectrum, but they're all the same morons

Edited December 16, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

just wondering why you're suddenly so hung up on threats to Soubry, yet just a week or two ago you spent a lot of time arguing that threats to Eagle were an insignificance that couldn't be mentioned unless she had full proof of every aspect of them...?

And I notice that you're happy for Soubry to talk about how some have stirred the pot to cause it to happen, yet that was a damning crime when Eagle did the same.

How odd.

The attackers of each might (do) come from different sides of the political spectrum, but they're all the same morons

it was the fact that she was placing responsibility on Corbyn  and his supporters.

The whole point is that Soubry nailed it by not deflecting blame from the inflammatory comments the media make.

Like she says, there's a minority of knobheads who attach themselves to various groups or agendas, and I don't think you can hold that group accountable for it unless they're actually inciting it.

Soubry hasn't said that it's May's fault and she should sort it, she's declared where she thinks the blame lies, I happen to agree with her.

If Eagle had said similar, I'd have fully supported her, and if she'd been a bit more circumspect in what she'd said - 'we're getting frightened because we've had abusive mail and death threats, and now a window in my building's been smashed which might be linked to my leadership challenge'

I think in her case she had gotten frightened, rather than a cynical political  move. And it made her a bit loose lipped. she did correct herself later, and accepted that Corbyn condemned abuse. I think she could have suggested to Corbyn privately that he did so, it would have looked better for Labour without all the public spats.

I don't think it did her any favours either, as it wasn't really a reasoned response. I got the impression that she wasn't emotionally strong, and a little bit hysterical, even.

Soubry comes across as much more together.

Remember, I'm just the average voter. I don't know eagle's history, I just see her as she presents herself, and she seemed a bit too keen to jump to conclusions and blame people who had no real control on what randoms get up to. If the culprit had been identified, found to have links to a particular Corbyn group, and there was reason to think they had incited this type of response, I'd have been thoroughly on her side.

Edited December 16, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

it was the fact that she was placing responsibility on Corbyn  and his supporters.

It's very clearly 'supporters' of Jez that are doing the attacks like that. They're not doing it on his instructions, of course, and NO ONE has suggested they are.

And the responsibility she wanted from Jez was for him to step up as leader to speak out about it - something he'd declined to do despite many requests over the previous months. Eagle had become a target for hate-squads about 5 months* before her window was broken.

(* funnily enough, after two stand-ins for Jez at PMQs where her good performance showed him up as shit. Long before 'the coup').

I've told you these facts before. How come they didn't go in?

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Soubry hasn't said that it's May's fault and she should sort it, she's declared where she thinks the blame lies, I happen to agree with her.

Eagle didn't say it was Jez's fault.

Eagle asked Jez - for the nth time - to speak out against it. He'd been refusing to do so for many months already by that point, while the amount of hate being thrown around had been growing.

May *has* spoken out against the sort of hate thrown at Soubry, btw.
(tho of course, as the tories aren't a luvvy-dovey party, there's less expectations for them to do this sort of thing).

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's very clearly 'supporters' of Jez that are doing the attacks like that. They're not doing it on his instructions, of course, and NO ONE has suggested they are.

And the responsibility she wanted from Jez was for him to step up as leader to speak out about it - something he'd declined to do despite many requests over the previous months. Eagle had become a target for hate-squads about 5 months* before her window was broken.

(* funnily enough, after two stand-ins for Jez at PMQs where her good performance showed him up as shit. Long before 'the coup').

I've told you these facts before. How come they didn't go in?

Because this was all in the context of the leadership challenge, and accusations and counter accusations. Whereas Soubry could have gone down this road, has avoided it, and has come out looking more objective and emotionally strong.

Plus, I blame the media too, rather that 'supporters of Tory Brexiteers', therefore, it's the media that are accountable, rather than the Tory hard Brexiters. Unless they're actively in collusions with the press of course.

 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I got the impression that she wasn't emotionally strong, and a little bit hysterical, even.

Soubry comes across as much more together.

blimey, feral abandons the weak for a tory. Not seen that before.

It's amazing what a bit of Jez support brings about. Not just hate.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Because this was all in the context of the leadership challenge

that's just it. It wasn't.

The hate had been going on for months against Eagle.

Jez had been refusing to speak out against that hate long before Eagle said publicly that he should be doing.

 

Quote

Plus, I blame the media too, rather that 'supporters of Tory Brexiteers', therefore, it's the media that are accountable, rather than the Tory hard Brexiters. Unless they're actively in collusions with the press of course.

and of course your hard no-facts line about Eagle isn't anything to do with you using The Canary as your sole source.

I guess that Jez is in collusion with them about that, too.

Edited December 16, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Eagle didn't say it was Jez's fault.

Eagle asked Jez - for the nth time - to speak out against it. He'd been refusing to do so for many months already by that point, while the amount of hate being thrown around had been growing.

May *has* spoken out against the sort of hate thrown at Soubry, btw.
(tho of course, as the tories aren't a luvvy-dovey party, there's less expectations for them to do this sort of thing).

Didn't she?

It gets confusing sometimes, because on here it gets suggested that it's his fault.

I think it's better to focus on genuine concerns around his leadership, than the shitstorm the media likes to stir up. The Guardian screwed up with Traingate, Eagle was a bit too quick to jump to conclusions, etc.

I can't see the difference between her being subjected to being fact checked and corbyn being fact checked. It's just as nitpicky, which is my main point. 

Because focusing on this is a distraction from real issues.

 

[feral chile]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

blimey, feral abandons the weak for a tory. Not seen that before.

It's amazing what a bit of Jez support brings about. Not just hate.

I did start thinking, 'shit I'm turning Tory', when I posted that.

 

[zahidf]

Most idiotic Brexiteer of the month award has been won

 

[pink_triangle]

42 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Because this was all in the context of the leadership challenge, and accusations and counter accusations. Whereas Soubry could have gone down this road, has avoided it, and has come out looking more objective and emotionally strong.

I think they are very different scenarios. May doesn't have the same personal fanbase as Corbyn. So has potentially less interest over such people.

42 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

 

[pink_triangle]

29 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Didn't she?

It gets confusing sometimes, because on here it gets suggested that it's his fault.

I think it's better to focus on genuine concerns around his leadership, than the shitstorm the media likes to stir up. The Guardian screwed up with Traingate, Eagle was a bit too quick to jump to conclusions, etc.

I can't see the difference between her being subjected to being fact checked and corbyn being fact checked. It's just as nitpicky, which is my main point. 

Because focusing on this is a distraction from real issues.

 

Feral you are the only person who is being distracted by brickgate and traingate. It's old news.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I think they are very different scenarios. May doesn't have the same personal fanbase as Corbyn. So has potentially less interest over such people.

 

Well Farage, or Boris then. or Britain First etc. Soubry didn't point to anyone besides the media, she kept it objective

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

Feral you are the only person who is being distracted by brickgate and traingate. It's old news.

It's non news.

I'm getting distracted by how different the Tories and labour party are approaching the infighting.

And how people on here respond to media reports.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Oh, so you lied. who'd have thought it.

Only you.

 

[feral chile]

Edited December 16, 2017 by feral chile
i agree with the principle stated here.

[eFestivals]

53 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Didn't she?

It gets confusing sometimes, because on here it gets suggested that it's his fault.

does it? I've never seen anything suggesting that it's directly his fault.

 

Quote

I think it's better to focus on genuine concerns around his leadership,

like the leader speaking out about hate from party supporters, you mean...?

 

Quote

The Guardian screwed up with Traingate,

the gave a wrong credit - a minor error- and didn't check sources as thouroughly as they might have, and fessed-up even while no one was suggesting they'd done wrong.

Corbyn faked a whole situation, and then tried to avoid being honest about it.

 

Quote

Eagle was a bit too quick to jump to conclusions, etc.

yet the slow to jump to conclusions jumped to the same conclusions.

Meaning those quick conclusions were not wrongly placed.

 

Quote

I can't see the difference between her being subjected to being fact checked and corbyn being fact checked. It's just as nitpicky, which is my main point. 

but you're not fact checking.

Your posts often reveal you short of the most basic facts, while you also state wrong ones - like you did her (again, endlessly again ), claiming Eagle blamed Corbyn for the hate she was getting.

 

Quote

Because focusing on this is a distraction from real issues.

There is no great diversion created by Jez speaking out about hate.

There was much more of a diversion created by him not speaking out about hate. And by readers of the Canary who refuse all inconvenient facts.

Edited December 16, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

mostly paid for via the upping of the PA at Westminster, and not anything the SNP are doing.

Oh, and negated again for those who benefit via the ScotGov underfunding councils who'll be raising council tax by a higher rate then they'd otherwise have to.

An SNP who've been suggesting for a decade they might tax the better earning more, but haven't pursued it.

Until Labour nicked their votes.

Edited December 16, 2017 by eFestivals