The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[banjodeano 28]

5 minutes ago, bendix said:

Rumbled!  You quite literally copy and pasted that from Wikipedia.  If you're going to preach to people, at least have the gumption to rewrite stuff in your own words.

 

Oh, and here is the original quote from Wiki.   Could you explain why you deleted the last sentence from the paragraph you lifted (bolded by me) while deciding to emphasise the bits that suit your argument?  That's a curious omission, and intellectually dishonest.  Perhaps it was an inconvenient truth:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_United_Kingdom_general_strike

 

"The miners maintained resistance for a few months before being forced, by their own economic needs, to return to the mines. By the end of November, most miners were back at work. However, many remained unemployed for many years. Those still employed were forced to accept longer hours, lower wages and district wage agreements. The strikers felt that they had achieved nothing"

Yes I did copy and paste, is that breaking forum rules? I didnt think I had broken any rules, my apologies if I have, but I thought it was put better than I could ever put it..I omitted many parts, not just the last bit, but the parts I omitted were not relevant, what was relevant was the point I was making was that workers rights were not given to them on a plate, they had to fight for those rights, some times they won, some times they lost...but they were never given out of the kindness of the employer, or very rarely

[bendix 10]

Uh huh.   OK . You copy and paste an entire paragraph, and yet decide to omit the last few words which expressly state that the miners themselves felt they had achieved nothing and claim that's not relevant.   Gotcha.  I suspect you deleted it because it didn't support your argument.

 

 

 

 

[banjodeano 28]

1 hour ago, bendix said:

Uh huh.   OK . You copy and paste an entire paragraph, and yet decide to omit the last few words which expressly state that the miners themselves felt they had achieved nothing and claim that's not relevant.   Gotcha.  I suspect you deleted it because it didn't support your argument.

 

 

 

 

Stop trying to derail the thread, its totally irrelevant whether I copied and pasted something, or whether I omitted something,  the theme of the thread was did workers get given their rights or did they have to fight for them, I was responding to a poster who said their rights were given to them, not all strikes were successful, but this just proves my point, the workers had to fight for their rights, now do you want to partake and debate the subject at hand, or waffle on about copying and pasting? 

[bendix 10]

I dont think it's derailing the thread to point out intellectual dishonesty and plagiarism, particularly when you compound your intellectual dishonesty by selectively deleting parts of the passage you plagiarised, but only those that refuted your argument.

 

Do you do this often? Should we run all your posts through google search to be sure of whether it's your ideas or someone else's?

 

 

 

Anyway, back on topic.  Labour peers publish a letter calling Corbyn out for allowing anti-semitism in the party.  But, of course, they are likely paid for by Jews, or are Jews, or Mossad or something . . .   

 

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-peers-release-newspaper-advert-slamming-jeremy-corbyn-over-antisemitism-11764719

 

[banjodeano 28]

21 minutes ago, bendix said:

I dont think it's derailing the thread to point out intellectual dishonesty and plagiarism, particularly when you compound your intellectual dishonesty by selectively deleting parts of the passage you plagiarised, but only those that refuted your argument.

 

Do you do this often? Should we run all your posts through google search to be sure of whether it's your ideas or someone else's?

 

 

 

Anyway, back on topic.  Labour peers publish a letter calling Corbyn out for allowing anti-semitism in the party.  But, of course, they are likely paid for by Jews, or are Jews, or Mossad or something . . .   

 

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-peers-release-newspaper-advert-slamming-jeremy-corbyn-over-antisemitism-11764719

 

So you have nothing to offer on the subject that was being discussed, whether workers were given their rights or that they had to fight for them?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

18 minutes ago, bendix said:

But, of course, they are likely paid for by Jews, or are Jews, or Mossad or something . . .   

I suspect they are much more likely to simply be political opponents of Corbyn’s.

 

If you were serious about the issue you would be talking to Corbyn, not writing a joint letter and sending it to the papers. The audience for that letter is the general public, not the party leader. The ECHR is currently investigating the party. Any public demonstrations such as this before the ECHR reports is nothing more than political opportunism.

[bendix 10]

1 hour ago, banjodeano said:

So you have nothing to offer on the subject that was being discussed, whether workers were given their rights or that they had to fight for them?

Before I answer, are those your words or someone else's?

 

As always, your position is to slogan-heavy simplistic.    It's a process, not an event.  Workers campaign for better conditions, employers recognise that happier more relaxed workers are more productive.  Everyone wins.  Work gets easier, employers get richer, more people are employed.  Lovely jubbly.

 

Yet more evidence that capitalism has built in defence mechanisms.

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I suspect they are much more likely to simply be political opponents of Corbyn’s.

 

If you were serious about the issue you would be talking to Corbyn, not writing a joint letter and sending it to the papers. The audience for that letter is the general public, not the party leader. The ECHR is currently investigating the party. Any public demonstrations such as this before the ECHR reports is nothing more than political opportunism.

Perhaps they have tried to speak with the leadership, but feel it has gotten them nowhere.  So they have to do this to step up the pressure.

 

I admire your loyalty TCH, even if it seems blind to me.

[alchresearch 210]

8 minutes ago, bendix said:

Perhaps they have tried to speak with the leadership, but feel it has gotten them nowhere.  So they have to do this to step up the pressure.

 

I admire your loyalty TCH, even if it seems blind to me.

I guess some just can't see that Labour is broken.  And its broken because of Corbyn.  No doubt a nice man, but a career backbencher with no leadership qualities.

 

All those years ago when Tories were recommended to join Labour for £3 to vote him in, It worked didn't it?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

5 minutes ago, bendix said:

I admire your loyalty TCH, even if it seems blind to me.

Quite the opposite.

 

I have no loyalty to Corbyn whatsoever but have grave concerns that this kind of relentless personal attack has become acceptable in modern politics.

 

Neither am I blind to what is going on. There is literally nothing that Labour can do to make this go away short of getting rid of Corbyn. It is proving far too effective a tool to abandon now. As one of the few people on this forum who has consistently called for Corbyn to go as his Brexit position is untenable, getting rid of him simply to placate his political opponents puts our system in even more danger than it already is.

 

With the current prevalence of fake news and outside political interference, to show those who would wish us harm that they can pick and choose who leads our political parties is extremely dangerous.

 

Bizarre as it may seem, people of all political persuasions should be defending Corbyn’s right to be able to lead his party without partisan interference.

[bendix 10]

5 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

.

 

Bizarre as it may seem, people of all political persuasions should be defending Corbyn’s right to be able to lead his party without partisan interference.

I think you'll find most of us who find Labour's drift to the far left alarming, fully defend Corbyn's right to be able to lead his party any way he likes.  He's made them completely unelectable, and that's got to be a good thing.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

13 minutes ago, bendix said:

He's made them completely unelectable, and that's got to be a good thing.

And here we have the crux of this whole thing.

 

If Labour is so completely unelectable, why is such profound effort being expended to destroy Corbyn and demonise Labour?

[L00b 441]

53 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

And here we have the crux of this whole thing.

 

If Labour is so completely unelectable, why is such profound effort being expended to destroy Corbyn and demonise Labour?

To keep it ever less electable, at least whilst Corbyn helms it?

 

The fundamental problem (as I see it), is that Corbyn is not a modern politician. His leadership style (never mind his ideas/visions) is unfit for purpose in this day and age. That made him, and continues to make him, and therefore Labour, an easy target for his detractors.

 

Now we've all amply seen in the past few years, what influence relentless biased media has on populations. Labour itself saw it at the coalface under Miliband, even before Corbyn arrived at the helm.

 

Corbyn needed to tackle that fact of modern political life  head-on from the get-go, with strong, outspoken and equally-relentless messaging. He hasn't, sticking to his affable allotment-tending type, exhibiting about as much fight in him as a wet lettuce.

 

And now he and Labour are where they are. Electorally obliterated, trailing 4th in by-elections barely ahead of the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate.

 

Lord knows I've never had much time for the traditional left and old/new Labour (I'd badge myself "centre-centre-right"), but I'll confess to gradually having it in for Corbyn over his wilful dereliction of opposing duty for political opportunism.

 

He's no better than all the other opportunist politicians, in fact I'd say he's worse, for managing to lose at least as much of Labour's political capital over the past 3 years as the Tories, without doing anything at all!

Edited July 17, 2019 by L00b