The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[bendix]

35 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

Of course it is, without doubt its in a mess, but you really have no idea why do you? if you had taken more interest in politics as a WHOLE then you would be able to work it out, but you only listen to what the BBC tells you, you have not looked at it in depth have you? as you say you dont really care about what is happening in the labour party, you have no interest, but you are quite happy to come on here and blab about antisemitism and dont really have a clue what you are talking about, all you know is that you see it on telly every day so it must be true..

I provided a link with Joan Ryan discussing with an Israeli lobbyist taking down elected MP's. and as i recall i think you were not even bothered..

The friends of Israel are funding a lot of MP's in the party, money is coming from the likes of Sir David Gerrard who is Jewish, he also financed the breakaway labour MP's, Trevor Chinn is another Jewish Donor funding the likes of Tom Watson...they are doing the best to destroy the party, they are deliberately making it un electable, whether you like the fact or not, Jewish money is trying to stop democracy in the labour party

here...educate yourself Bendix

 

 

 

 

So Jewish money is money that comes from Jews.  OK.  I get it.  I'm a white guy with blue eyes and blond hair.  If I donate to the Labour Party, would you call that Aryan money?  How about Lenny Henry? Would that be black money?

 

I'm just curious why you fixate on the jewishness of it.

 

I'm not sure what is wrong with Chinn et al donating money to Watson, Chukka, Dan Jarvis etc.  If they want to use their money - or the money of organisations they represent - to further political objectives, so what?  Lobbying and making donations has central to the political process for hundreds of years.  Labour has had several high profile businesspeople make large donations to them in the past.

[banjodeano]

11 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

You'd think Labour would have enough enemies to go round by fighting the Tories.

 

But they seem hell bent on attacking their own and causing further divisions in the party.

What's democratic about this?

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/02/labour-faces-subversion-momentum-far-left-roy-hattersley-watford-byelection

 

but it is democratic, get rid of the label momentum, just see them as party members, why should they not choose who represents them? if they are outvoted then thats it, what was democratic about MP's parachuted into positions with a nod and a wink, no let the members decide, the party is restoring democracy....

[banjodeano]

12 minutes ago, bendix said:

 

 

So Jewish money is money that comes from Jews.  OK.  I get it.  I'm a white guy with blue eyes and blond hair.  If I donate to the Labour Party, would you call that Aryan money?  How about Lenny Henry? Would that be black money?

 

I'm just curious why you fixate on the jewishness of it.

 

I'm not sure what is wrong with Chinn et al donating money to Watson, Chukka, Dan Jarvis etc.  If they want to use their money - or the money of organisations they represent - to further political objectives, so what?  Lobbying and making donations has central to the political process for hundreds of years.  Labour has had several high profile businesspeople make large donations to them in the past.

dont try and take it down that route, it is only relevant because they are using it as a tool..

"I'm not sure what is wrong with Chinn et al donating money to Watson"...

you really dont get it do you? you really are clueless?

can you not work out why someone who is Jewish donating massively to a MP, then that MP starts to cause chaos in the party by going on about Antisemitism? does it not start to alert some kind of suspicion in you? can you not work out that Corbyn is a threat to Israel and they want him to never get in power, and this is a way of doing it..

 

[melthebell]

11 minutes ago, bendix said:

 

 

So Jewish money is money that comes from Jews.  OK.  I get it.  I'm a white guy with blue eyes and blond hair.  If I donate to the Labour Party, would you call that Aryan money?  How about Lenny Henry? Would that be black money?

 

I'm just curious why you fixate on the jewishness of it.

 

I'm not sure what is wrong with Chinn et al donating money to Watson, Chukka, Dan Jarvis etc.  If they want to use their money - or the money of organisations they represent - to further political objectives, so what?  Lobbying and making donations has central to the political process for hundreds of years.  Labour has had several high profile businesspeople make large donations to them in the past.

I think youre being deliberately obtuse, Theres currently a massive anti-semitism  issue around labour? The point is a lot of people could, and like Banjo are saying these donations are payments for causing such a ruckous. To create such a stink that certain people will be got rid of, people who these donators see as the enemy. It's not normal donating or lobbying, its sowing seeds of hate, distrust and out and out warfare inside the party 

[convert]

17 minutes ago, melthebell said:

I think youre being deliberately obtuse, Theres currently a massive anti-semitism  issue around labour? The point is a lot of people could, and like Banjo are saying these donations are payments for causing such a ruckous. To create such a stink that certain people will be got rid of, people who these donators see as the enemy. It's not normal donating or lobbying, its sowing seeds of hate, distrust and out and out warfare inside the party 

Were these same people making similar donations prior to Corbyn becoming leader?

[melthebell]

15 minutes ago, convert said:

Were these same people making similar donations prior to Corbyn becoming leader?

I have no idea, im no fan of the labour party, but i do try and look fairly, i dont know the background to a lot of these people or groups on both sides, but what i posted does look like what is happening to me, as an outsider, maybe im right, maybe im wrong.

Feel free to dig deeper into all the groups and people involved and make notes, see how true it is.

[bendix]

48 minutes ago, melthebell said:

I have no idea, im no fan of the labour party, but i do try and look fairly, i dont know the background to a lot of these people or groups on both sides, but what i posted does look like what is happening to me, as an outsider, maybe im right, maybe im wrong.

Feel free to dig deeper into all the groups and people involved and make notes, see how true it is.

David Garrard of the building company has been one of the largest Labour party donors for years.  He has been reportedly funding the key members of the breakaway group. Previously he funded millions to Labour when it was led by Blair, Brown and Miliband.

Edited March 11, 2019 by bendix

[sheffbag]

1 hour ago, banjodeano said:

to be honest, i cant see the party being elected for a good while yet, it will never get elected whilst we have the right in the party trying to cause chaos, the best thing that could happen is that party kicks out the Tories within it, we may as well get the bloodshed out of the way then we can start again

Genuine question based on the above and other peoples comments about "Blairites" and "Torylite" within the Labour ranks. Given that Labour as Corbyn / Momentum wish to take the party to has been unelectable to the general public for 45 years do you really think that Labour

 

a. Could reverse the public view and win an election with JC as leader and the current shadow cabinet

b. Accept that the british public has rejected this model of labour for nearly half a century by the time of the next election and admit that Labour will be an opposition party again

c. Accept a more moderate leader and ideals and stand a chance of getting into parliament but in return you get a more "blair" style government but at least a Labour govt will be in power?

 

It strikes me (and speaking as a former Labour voter who would never vote for JC/DA as long as they are in the shadow cabinet) that people who want the "old" labour back based more on a socialist (whatever that is nowadays) viewpoint seem to be missing the point that the british public continually reject that policy. It didnt work for Callaghan, Foot or Kinnock so why would it work for Corbyn?

 

please dont try to say that Labour "got a massive increase" in the last election as the crux of your point. The fact remains that they would have to find another 60 seats plus in order to become the government, Thats a 25% increase in seats for them and I cant see that happening if they maintain with Corbyn

[convert]

7 minutes ago, bendix said:

David Garrard of the building company has been one of the largest Labour party donors for years.  He has been reportedly funding the key members of the breakaway group. Previously he funded millions to Labour when it was led by Blair, Brown and Miliband.

As I thought, they were donating money well before Corbyn, when Labour had leaders who were not considered (by some)  to be a 'threat' to Israel.

[banjodeano]

11 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Genuine question based on the above and other peoples comments about "Blairites" and "Torylite" within the Labour ranks. Given that Labour as Corbyn / Momentum wish to take the party to has been unelectable to the general public for 45 years do you really think that Labour

 

a. Could reverse the public view and win an election with JC as leader and the current shadow cabinet

b. Accept that the british public has rejected this model of labour for nearly half a century by the time of the next election and admit that Labour will be an opposition party again

c. Accept a more moderate leader and ideals and stand a chance of getting into parliament but in return you get a more "blair" style government but at least a Labour govt will be in power?

 

It strikes me (and speaking as a former Labour voter who would never vote for JC/DA as long as they are in the shadow cabinet) that people who want the "old" labour back based more on a socialist (whatever that is nowadays) viewpoint seem to be missing the point that the british public continually reject that policy. It didnt work for Callaghan, Foot or Kinnock so why would it work for Corbyn?

 

please dont try to say that Labour "got a massive increase" in the last election as the crux of your point. The fact remains that they would have to find another 60 seats plus in order to become the government, Thats a 25% increase in seats for them and I cant see that happening if they maintain with Corbyn

Thanks for the detailed questions..

as you mention Labour got a massive increase, but it wasnt enough, but can you imagine what the result might have been if he had unity in the party, perhaps they may have even won,  Corbyn had spent the last god knows how many months fighting accusations of antisemitism..

with a united party, what do you think the likely outcome would have been? i honestly believe they would not have been far short of taking power.

But it brings us back to the usual question, the right wing of  party not accepting the new direction the party has taken, i hand on heart believe that the likes of Watson etc would rather see another Tory government that a Corbyn led labour one, i honestly believe that the likes of Watson are in the wrong party, they are not socialists, you only have to look at how they voted for the bombing of Syria,

i believe all the antisemitism is just fabricated to undermine Corbyn, lets look at the facts, Corbyn has fought antisemitism and racism all his life, to now call him antisemitic is ludicrous, there were less than 0.01% of the membership found to have made antisemitic comments and kicked out of the party, that doesnt sound like the party is rife with antisemitism as the likes of Hodge and Watson state...

and lets look at the accusations, a lot of the lines have now become blurred, it has crept in that criticism of Israel is now classed as antisemitism or if not frowned upon,  The likes of Livigstone and Williams has shown us how silly it is all getting...what has Williams actually said that was antisemitic? no one has answered that one yet, and i have asked loads of times

You ask if the country would ever vote for a socialist party, i believe they would, but most people only look at the headlines, and the headlines by the media deliberately focus on AS, they dont want to talk about what labour has to offer, re nationalising our services, a peoples bank, more funding of the NHS, stopping the cuts to our services, getting more bobbies back on the beat,

People have been moaning for years that there is not an alternative in parliament, that they are all the same, well now they have a choice, Labour has to get its message out there, how it breaks through the media hatred and lies i have no idea, when you get the media telling us Corbyn is a spy  and an enemy of the country, then we have serious democracy issues...

Lastly, if we replaced Corbyn with a moderate leader, we may get elected, but what would the point be if we didnt change things for the better, what would the point be? just so we can get into power and change nothing?