Labour Purge Begins

[pErvinalia]

The part where you provide the evidence for your claim.

[mistermack]

The part where you provide the evidence for your claim.

Where is your evidence that my post was bullshit?
I provided the wiki evidence, you provided none whatsoever.

[pErvinalia]

YOU are the one claiming that he openly dissed his leaders. The onus is on YOU to provide evidence for your claims. I can't provide evidence for the lack of something. That's nonsensical. Even Seth probably get's that one (actually, he doesn't; congrats, you've got reached the logic level of Seth).

[mistermack]

YOU are the one claiming that he openly dissed his leaders. The onus is on YOU to provide evidence for your claims. I can't provide evidence for the lack of something. That's nonsensical. Even Seth probably get's that one (actually, he doesn't; congrats, you've got reached the logic level of Seth).

You're a joke. If you can't take being wrong, you shouldn't post stuff you can't back up.

All that bollocks about loyalty to a party, when Corbyn has been disloyal for his whole career?
You're just posting from ignorance. What part of rebelliousness and voting against the party whip do you not understand?
Wriggle all you like. You're only fooling yourself.

[pErvinalia]

He's been internally rebellious, and you haven't said whether voting against the party whip is not allowed.

You've claimed an equivalency to Danzcuk. You need to back it up. It's your claim. He hasn't used the media (part of the elite system) to dis the leader so aggressively like Danzcuk and others have. You are attempting to use a tu quo que fallacy, and badly at that. If you think a party should tolerate such open rebellion of the likes of Danzcuk and the other cowards, then you have a bizarre view or organisational management.

[mistermack]

Yeh yeh keep wriggling.
I'm not going to quote mine Jeremy Corbyn just to further this. You're more like Seth than you care to admit, because no facts would stop your wriggling.

But if you think it's just me who makes the point, you couldn't be more wrong. The same point has been made in the media here over and over again, that Corbyn can't discipline dissent, without being a hypocrite himself.
If you think you know more than the various British media, you're just in a dream world.
The situation that Corbyn is in re dissent has been well and truly discussed over here.

[pErvinalia]

The bloody media are part of the elite system that is threatened by the policies of Corbyn. Of course they are largely supporting and creating dissent against Corbyn. This is just another one of your "I was giving an opinion, not making an argument" nonsense that you pull out every time someone asks you to provide evidence of your assertions. "I just know it in my bones" isn't evidence.

[mistermack]

Oh I see.
There's a CONSPIRACY against Corbyn.

That's an interesting theory

[pErvinalia]

Are you that clueless to the interaction and dominance of politics by the elite in society? I thought you understood well the concept of the 1%.

[mistermack]

Are you that clueless to the interaction and dominance of politics by the elite in society? I thought you understood well the concept of the 1%.

Change the subject again, why don't you? If you think that there's a conspiracy against Corbyn in the British media, let's see your evidence. ( as you delight in saying. )

As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn must be in on it too, because he CLEARLY sees that he has a problem with imposing party discipline.

He would have liked to impose a party whip against the vote to allow UK bombers to bomb Syria.
He dithered right up to the last minute, but in the end he didn't dare, because he knew that too many MPs would have defied it, and his disciplinary situation would have been out in the open.
So even though he spoke against the bombing, he had to abandon any whipping and allow a free vote.
Why couldn't he impose a whip? Because his MPs would just point to his own history of ignoring the whip.
In the end, even his own deputy, Tom Watson, voted against him, in favour of the bombing of Syria.

I actually agree with him on a lot of the things that he supports. I'm not against him on principle on everything. For example, he has much the same opinions as me on Israel.
I just disagree with him on a lot of other very important things.
And don't want the Labour Party to crash on the rocks, which is what is going to happen with him in charge.

[Hermit]

He's been internally rebellious...

Are you joking? Defying a whip's instructions in course of a parliamentary vote is about as public and extreme as a sitting MP can make his/her criticism of his/her own party, which includes its leader, can make it. Corbyn did precisely that 428 times while Labour was in power between 2001 and 2010.

[pErvinalia]

Are you that clueless to the interaction and dominance of politics by the elite in society? I thought you understood well the concept of the 1%.

Change the subject again, why don't you?

You're the one who thinks it's a CONSPIRACY!1! that the media looks after it's own interest. It so uncontroversial a point to make that I'm surprised even you are arguing against it.

If you think that there's a conspiracy against Corbyn in the British media, let's see your evidence. ( as you delight in saying. )

You've highlighted the evidence yourself. The British press is full of anti-Corbyn articles, despite the fact that he is immensely popular and absolutely shat it in in the election. He is a direct threat to the neoliberal elite. Exactly the same as Bernie Sanders in the US. The media has zero motive to fairly portray these guys as they are set to suffer if Corbyn/Sanders gets elected.

As far as I'm concerned, Corbyn must be in on it too, because he CLEARLY sees that he has a problem with imposing party discipline.

The guy promised to be inclusive of some of the anti-Corbynites in the name of party unity. And many of them repaid him with open warfare. So it's not surprising that he is now moving on some of them. How long do you expect him to tolerate open disunity??

He would have liked to impose a party whip against the vote to allow UK bombers to bomb Syria.
He dithered right up to the last minute, but in the end he didn't dare, because he knew that too many MPs would have defied it, and his disciplinary situation would have been out in the open.
So even though he spoke against the bombing, he had to abandon any whipping and allow a free vote.
Why couldn't he impose a whip? Because his MPs would just point to his own history of ignoring the whip.
In the end, even his own deputy, Tom Watson, voted against him, in favour of the bombing of Syria.

Is it possible that he simply believes in free conscious voting?

I actually agree with him on a lot of the things that he supports. I'm not against him on principle on everything. For example, he has much the same opinions as me on Israel.
I just disagree with him on a lot of other very important things.
And don't want the Labour Party to crash on the rocks, which is what is going to happen with him in charge.

I just reckon we need to wait and see. It is probably likely he will fail in taking on the system, but in the process he at least shows that there is still popular support in the public and labour party for progressivism. He might fail, but the next Corbyn might succeed. People just need to be careful to not parrot uncritical analysis from the "serious people". That is, professional politicians and media elite (and the wealthy elite), who have very little interest in the concept of good governance and are more in the game for their own personal advantage.

[pErvinalia]

He's been internally rebellious...

Are you joking?

Do I sound like I am joking?

Defying a whip's instructions in course of a parliamentary vote is about as public and extreme as a sitting MP can make his/her criticism of his/her own party, which includes its leader, can make it. Corbyn did precisely that 428 times while Labour was in power between 2001 and 2010.

That's why I asked him to explain the whip process in the UK. I have no idea if it is considered overly "rebellious" to go against the whip in the UK. In any case, he's voting with his conscious and presumably as his constituents want him to vote (given how long he's been in parliament). That's utterly different to what Danczuk and others are doing to him. The are using a friendly media as a bully pulpit to directly cause instability in the party. I can't think of anything more warranting of a dis-endorsement than that. If Blair and Gordon etc didn't sack him for his crossing the floor, then who's fault is that? It's not his fault. He's just voting as his constituents want. I think he has every right to sack the cowards who are using a compliant media to undermine his clear mandate.

[mistermack]

Is it possible that he simply believes in free conscious voting?

If that's the case, why don't you shut the fuck up about "

I reckon he's been really lenient with these traitors. But their grace period is over. They need to stop openly revolting. Keep it internal or quit. Fucking cowards.

If he believes in free "conscience" voting, he's not going to be imposing any whips, or discipline on his MPs.
He might have no choice anyway. With his record, he's going to struggle every time. He might as well give up now.

[pErvinalia]

What kind of logic is that?!? Conscious voting is in no way equivalent to openly bitching in the media. FFS. Is it "black is white" time again??