rubydazzler Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Well you can unmark it, I'm about as anti-anti-semite as they come. I was just thinking back to BritPat's description of Milliband as 'Israeli', which of course he isn't, it was just Jew-hater's code for Jew. We've had some others on here before as well, such as angle20. Good riddance to 'em.I just find it strange that you found it necessary to post the information and then make reference to two people who aren't even posting on the thread? *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 But is it correct to say that is only Labour rules, not the current legal position? There is no law against having a party leader who isn't an MP. A Prime Minister has to be an MP - Alec Douglas-Home resigned his peerage and a quickie by-election was called so in a safe Tory seat, so that he could take over as PM. Labour rules specify that a party leader must be an MP, and given that the party has serious hopes of winning elections, there is no sensible reason to change them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 I think the Labour leadership will be a straight fight between Milliband and Balls. Blairite vs. Brownite. I've never understood the distiction between the two. It's not as if the distinction is meaningful i.e. between those on the left or right of the party. It's tribalism for the sake of it. Can anyone explain to me what those labels mean? Why can't we have someone on the left of centre? I mean genuinely left of centre in the proper sense of the term. That is someone who believes in social democracy or democratic socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 I just find it strange that you found it necessary to post the information and then make reference to two people who aren't even posting on the thread? *shrug* Well you can find it strange if you like, but libel me at your peril Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 I've never understood the distiction between the two. It's not as if the distinction is meaningful i.e. between those on the left or right of the party. It's tribalism for the sake of it. Can anyone explain to me what those labels mean? Why can't we have someone on the left of centre? I mean genuinely left of centre in the proper sense of the term. That is someone who believes in social democracy or democratic socialism. The term is often used to describe individuals within the labour party who support Blair's right wing reforms. Often Brownites are seen as more left and, by some, seen to have a slightly more Liberal or Liberal Left ideology to Blairites. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blairism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 I've never understood the distiction between the two. It's not as if the distinction is meaningful i.e. between those on the left or right of the party. It's tribalism for the sake of it. Can anyone explain to me what those labels mean? Why can't we have someone on the left of centre? I mean genuinely left of centre in the proper sense of the term. That is someone who believes in social democracy or democratic socialism. I don't think you'll find many socialists in the parliamentary Labour Party. Some social democrats sure, but in the last 13 years they seem to have produced a very poor facsimile of social democracy. It's not like we've found ourselves living in Denmark or Sweden is it, more's the pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Bring back "Arold Wilson with his Ganex raincoat, pipe and nationalisation of everything that didn't walk or talk. By gum Britain certainly benefited from his years of left of center Socialism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 I've arrived home tonight to an email from Harriet Harman, now Acting Leader of the Labour Party, in which she rules herself out of the leadership constest. Historical footnote: The last time the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party became Acting Leader occured upon the death of John Smith. On both occasions the Acting Leader was a woman, i.e., Margaret Beckett & Harriet Harman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Well you can find it strange if you like, but libel me at your perilLibel you? You were the one started talking about Jewish people for no apparent reason. No-one else even either knew, cared or thought it worthy of remark. As I indicated in the first place *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fareast Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 New leader of the Labour Party ? Well, Michael Foot 's no longer amongst those present-----so that rules him out of course. Denis Healey 's a bit over the hill, really. Is Charley Drake still around ? The Beast of Bolsover ? Well, at least he doesn 't accept backhanders---gives 'em out perhaps......but definitely not on the gravy train ! That only leaves John Prescott-----so, ' Come on down, John ! NuLabour need your tact, knowledge & diplomacy in their darkest hour ! ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.