Labour Party/government Watch

[Catweazle]

Will you be told if your vote was pulled ?

[UndercoverElephant]

I have now voted...

Don't rely on it not being pulled.

Pulling votes after they have been cast, in a non-private ballot where there is a powerful incentive for the existing powers within the Labour Party to rig the election, would be seen as a total farce. It would also be wide open to a legal challenge.

I wouldn't put that past them. I wouldn’t put anything past the bastards. We are now entering the gloves off, no more pretence war against democracy and the people. A war that is already well under-way elsewhere.

I wouldn't put it past them wanting to do it, or maybe even trying, but I think it would be extremely difficult to get away with it without there being very serious consequences, either of the legal variety or the Labour-Party-disintegrating variety.

Given everything that has happened, I think that these warnings coming from the Blairites that Labour might split if Corbyn wins are the exact opposite of the reality. The truth is now that if Corbyn doesn't win, the Labour Party will be impossible to keep in one piece. The incentive for a breakaway by the left, led by Corbyn, taking most of the grass-roots activists and new members/supporters with them, would be too much to resist. The remaining Labour Party would then become something resembling the old SDP.

Might sound fanciful, but that's where I think we are.

[UndercoverElephant]

Will you be told if your vote was pulled ?

Yes. That much they have to do or they will be very badly on the wrong side of the law. You can't charge people £3 to vote in an election and then disqualify people's votes after they've been cast without telling those people. It would be fraud of the most blatant sort.

[peaceful_life]

"you don't have to measure everything by the ability of the super rich to buy rolex waches"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqDxSKFt3A

It's also a bit obvious that Jeremy knows the difference between immigrant and refugee, causation and consequence, he also alludes to agricultural issues of resilience.

In short, he knows full well.

[UndercoverElephant]

"you don't have to measure everything by the ability of the super rich to buy rolex waches"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqDxSKFt3A

It's also a bit obvious that Jeremy knows the difference between immigrant and refugee, causation and consequence, he also alludes to agricultural issues of resilience.

In short, he knows full well.

It's just so refreshing to see a politician who responds to every question with a clear and informed answer. He makes no attempt to lie, to mislead or to obfuscate. I agree with much of what he says (maybe not all, but that would be too much to expect), but I will happily vote for him simply because he's willing to give a straight answer to a straight question, based on principles I broadly agree with. This is truly a rare thing in modern politics.

I am just trying to imagine watching a similar interview - same sort of questions - with the other three candidates. I suspect I'd be grinding my teeth after 3 minutes, and throwing things at the screen after 10, just because I'm watching these slithering, slimy-tongued careerists who weigh up every sentence in terms of the supposed centre-ground voters they think they need to appeal to. It's a fundamentally different approach to answering questions - do you simply state what you believe, and why you believe it, or do you always try to give the answer that conforms to some sort of political-electoral-career strategy. And what the careerists absolutely do not understand is that the public are sick to death of it, and are crying out for somebody like Corbyn who actually believes in something and isn't afraid to talk about it.

[peaceful_life]

"you don't have to measure everything by the ability of the super rich to buy rolex waches"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqDxSKFt3A

It's also a bit obvious that Jeremy knows the difference between immigrant and refugee, causation and consequence, he also alludes to agricultural issues of resilience.

In short, he knows full well.

It's just so refreshing to see a politician who responds to every question with a clear and informed answer. He makes no attempt to lie, to mislead or to obfuscate. I agree with much of what he says (maybe not all, but that would be too much to expect), but I will happily vote for him simply because he's willing to give a straight answer to a straight question, based on principles I broadly agree with. This is truly a rare thing in modern politics.

I am just trying to imagine watching a similar interview - same sort of questions - with the other three candidates. I suspect I'd be grinding my teeth after 3 minutes, and throwing things at the screen after 10, just because I'm watching these slithering, slimy-tongued careerists who weigh up every sentence in terms of the supposed centre-ground voters they think they need to appeal to. It's a fundamentally different approach to answering questions - do you simply state what you believe, and why you believe it, or do you always try to give the answer that conforms to some sort of political-electoral-career strategy. And what the careerists absolutely do not understand is that the public are sick to death of it, and are crying out for somebody like Corbyn who actually believes in something and isn't afraid to talk about it.

If*, and you could*, and you can, sitting on a cornflake, speak to Jeremy, after that conversion, would you still think fences and bullets are the best idea that we can come up with?

[UndercoverElephant]

"you don't have to measure everything by the ability of the super rich to buy rolex waches"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqDxSKFt3A

It's also a bit obvious that Jeremy knows the difference between immigrant and refugee, causation and consequence, he also alludes to agricultural issues of resilience.

In short, he knows full well.

It's just so refreshing to see a politician who responds to every question with a clear and informed answer. He makes no attempt to lie, to mislead or to obfuscate. I agree with much of what he says (maybe not all, but that would be too much to expect), but I will happily vote for him simply because he's willing to give a straight answer to a straight question, based on principles I broadly agree with. This is truly a rare thing in modern politics.

I am just trying to imagine watching a similar interview - same sort of questions - with the other three candidates. I suspect I'd be grinding my teeth after 3 minutes, and throwing things at the screen after 10, just because I'm watching these slithering, slimy-tongued careerists who weigh up every sentence in terms of the supposed centre-ground voters they think they need to appeal to. It's a fundamentally different approach to answering questions - do you simply state what you believe, and why you believe it, or do you always try to give the answer that conforms to some sort of political-electoral-career strategy. And what the careerists absolutely do not understand is that the public are sick to death of it, and are crying out for somebody like Corbyn who actually believes in something and isn't afraid to talk about it.

If*, and you could*, and you can, sitting on a cornflake, speak to Jeremy, after that conversion, would you still think fences and bullets are the best idea that we can come up with?

Not the best idea by a very long way. Fences and bullets aren't the best idea to any sort of problem involving humans. They are the "last ditch idea", not the best idea.

The problem, as we've all discussed at length, is the bigger picture and the longer term. Most people here have reluctantly accepted that some sort of die-off of humans - an involuntary reduction in global human population numbers, forced by ecological reality on a scale that is going to make a difference both in terms raw ecological maths and future human culture - is inevitable.

And if you accept that as a fact then it makes a profound difference to many of the key ethical questions involved here. In short, it leads to a moral argument that in this case the needs of individual humans, regardless of their humanity and their need, can be over-ridden by the need to attempt to preserve some semblance of civilisation in order to try to hold on to the best aspects of human culture won, in hard fought struggles, by brave, ordinary people, over the past 2500 years.

We can't save all the humans, but we might still be able to save the best of human intellectual, cultural and technological achievements.

[Little John]

It doesn't matter IF UE or YOU or I or, even, Jeremy Corbyn think ANYTHING.

That IS how it will end

[peaceful_life]

It's just so refreshing to see a politician who responds to every question with a clear and informed answer. He makes no attempt to lie, to mislead or to obfuscate. I agree with much of what he says (maybe not all, but that would be too much to expect), but I will happily vote for him simply because he's willing to give a straight answer to a straight question, based on principles I broadly agree with. This is truly a rare thing in modern politics.

I am just trying to imagine watching a similar interview - same sort of questions - with the other three candidates. I suspect I'd be grinding my teeth after 3 minutes, and throwing things at the screen after 10, just because I'm watching these slithering, slimy-tongued careerists who weigh up every sentence in terms of the supposed centre-ground voters they think they need to appeal to. It's a fundamentally different approach to answering questions - do you simply state what you believe, and why you believe it, or do you always try to give the answer that conforms to some sort of political-electoral-career strategy. And what the careerists absolutely do not understand is that the public are sick to death of it, and are crying out for somebody like Corbyn who actually believes in something and isn't afraid to talk about it.

If*, and you could*, and you can, sitting on a cornflake, speak to Jeremy, after that conversion, would you still think fences and bullets are the best idea that we can come up with?

Not the best idea by a very long way. Fences and bullets aren't the best idea to any sort of problem involving humans. They are the "last ditch idea", not the best idea.

The problem, as we've all discussed at length, is the bigger picture and the longer term. Most people here have reluctantly accepted that some sort of die-off of humans - an involuntary reduction in global human population numbers, forced by ecological reality on a scale that is going to make a difference both in terms raw ecological maths and future human culture - is inevitable.

And if you accept that as a fact then it makes a profound difference to many of the key ethical questions involved here. In short, it leads to a moral argument that in this case the needs of individual humans, regardless of their humanity and their need, can be over-ridden by the need to attempt to preserve some semblance of civilisation in order to try to hold on to the best aspects of human culture won, in hard fought struggles by brave, ordinary people, over the past 2500 years.

We can't save all the humans, but we might still be able to save the best of human intellectual, cultural and technological achievements.

The irony of advocating 'some kind of semblance of civilisation', whilst pondering whether or not your vote will even be accepted in a democratic fashion , is lamentable, to assert beyond that-that such a system then has some kind of moral substantiation, is quite frankly...bollocks and will continue to jeopardise this countries security, our people are already suffering foodbanks and relative poverty, is that the semblance of civilisation you're advocating?...it doesn't stand up.

[peaceful_life]

It doesn't matter IF UE or YOU or I or, even, Jeremy Corbyn think ANYTHING.

That IS how it will end

How it will end, Steve, will be decreed by nature itself & it's none to bothered about such pseudo tribal angst.

It's very very simple, get in-line with it, or be washed away, there aint a kkk or gun big enough to say otherwise.

This shits global.

[Little John]

It doesn't matter IF UE or YOU or I or, even, Jeremy Corbyn think ANYTHING.

That IS how it will end

How it will end, Steve, will be decreed by nature itself & it's none to bothered about such pseudo tribal angst.

It's very very simple, get in-line with it, or be washed away, there aint a kkk or gun big enough to say otherwise.

This shits global.

I am well aware it is global PL. I also know that, when push comes to shove, people will look after their families before their neighbours, their neighbours their community, their community before their nation and their nation before any other nation and they will expect their political representatives to enact policies that line up with the above hierarchy of priorities and those political representatives that do not will be swept away. The only thing that you or I or anyone else gets to decide now is what replaces them. It will be either some form of socialism that accepts we cannot save the world and must look to get our own house in order first, as must all nations. Or, we will get fascism/barbarism.

You can dress up your ideological wish fulfilment in as many fancy rhetorical clothes as you wish, it won't change the nature of what is coming and how humans will naturally react in the old ways they must always react. The sad and dark truth is that people like J2M have a better grip on what is coming than you or, even, me; or at least, in my case, until recently. Our job is to accept what we must accept, whilst holding onto those aspect of civilisation that we are able to. If we fail to do this, PL, then the J2M's of this world will be running the show in the none too distant future.

On this one issue, in particular, it will be fairly obvious I am in total disagreement with Corbyn's statements. However....one battle at a time..

[UndercoverElephant]

You couldn't make it up...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -backfires

The former Tory MP Louise Mensch came unstuck on Friday night when a series of apparently antisemitic suggested Twitter searches that she said were indicative of abuse from Jeremy Corbyn supporters turned out to be a record of her own search history.

The author tweeted a picture of a Twitter search bar, into which she had typed the handle of Liz Kendall’s Labour leadership campaign account @lizforleader. Referring to the options that then appeared underneath, she wrote: “Twitter’s autocomplete on Liz Kendall MP. This is the sewer that is Jeremy Corbyn’s support.”

But it was soon pointed out to her that they weren’t suggested searches – they were Mensch’s own search history.

[biffvernon]

Pure Karma.

[vtsnowedin]

It doesn't matter IF UE or YOU or I or, even, Jeremy Corbyn think ANYTHING.

That IS how it will end

How it will end, Steve, will be decreed by nature itself & it's none to bothered about such pseudo tribal angst.

It's very very simple, get in-line with it, or be washed away, there aint a kkk or gun big enough to say otherwise.

This shits global.

I am well aware it is global PL. I also know that, when push comes to shove, people will look after their families before their neighbours, their neighbours their community, their community before their nation and their nation before any other nation and they will expect their political representatives to enact policies that line up with the above hierarchy of priorities and those political representatives that do not will be swept away. The only thing that you or I or anyone else gets to decide now is what replaces them. It will be either some form of socialism that accepts we cannot save the world and must look to get our own house in order first, as must all nations. Or, we will get fascism/barbarism.
.,......

That hierarchy of priorities sounds like pure capitalism to me not socialism.

[UndercoverElephant]

How it will end, Steve, will be decreed by nature itself & it's none to bothered about such pseudo tribal angst.

It's very very simple, get in-line with it, or be washed away, there aint a kkk or gun big enough to say otherwise.

This shits global.

I am well aware it is global PL. I also know that, when push comes to shove, people will look after their families before their neighbours, their neighbours their community, their community before their nation and their nation before any other nation and they will expect their political representatives to enact policies that line up with the above hierarchy of priorities and those political representatives that do not will be swept away. The only thing that you or I or anyone else gets to decide now is what replaces them. It will be either some form of socialism that accepts we cannot save the world and must look to get our own house in order first, as must all nations. Or, we will get fascism/barbarism.
.,......

That hierarchy of priorities sounds like pure capitalism to me not socialism.

It has f*** all to do with either capitalism or communism.