Strontium Dog wrote:

Emmeline wrote:More from Dan Hodges on those tweets:

Dan Hodges @DPJHodges
Before everyone goes completely mad, me and @Hapoel4 had words. We both said silly things. We've apologised to each other.

I'm not a fan of Dan Hodges but if anyone thinks he is anti-semitic, you've got the wrong end of the stick. He's been criticising Corbyn for his associations with groups like Hamas & Holocaust deniers. Hodges is attacking those he regards as anti-semitic.

It would take particularly twisted logic to even suggest that Hodges may be anti-semitic. Hodges is attacking Corbyn for freely associating with anti-semites, racist, Holocaust deniers and the like. No surprise that the response of Corbyn supporters is to aggressively turn Corbyn's crimes onto his accuser.

Nobody is accusing Hodges of being anti-semitic. The only one suggesting that as far as I can see is Emmeline, I think in error. But here you are, repeating the smear against Corbyn. I am NOT surprised, am I.

OlivierK wrote:Not aimed at you in particular, Emme, but I'm fucking heartily sick of people arguing that the only way to engage with an electorate that's just voted Tory is to be Tories, no matter your political party.

If we're going to talk about parallel universes and Alice in Wonderland politics, that's what does my head in.

Not aimed at you in particular either but I'm fucking heartily sick of people chucking the word "Tory" around at people who don't think Corbyn is the fucking dog's bollocks.

ronmcd wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Emmeline wrote:More from Dan Hodges on those tweets:

Dan Hodges @DPJHodges
Before everyone goes completely mad, me and @Hapoel4 had words. We both said silly things. We've apologised to each other.

I'm not a fan of Dan Hodges but if anyone thinks he is anti-semitic, you've got the wrong end of the stick. He's been criticising Corbyn for his associations with groups like Hamas & Holocaust deniers. Hodges is attacking those he regards as anti-semitic.

It would take particularly twisted logic to even suggest that Hodges may be anti-semitic. Hodges is attacking Corbyn for freely associating with anti-semites, racist, Holocaust deniers and the like. No surprise that the response of Corbyn supporters is to aggressively turn Corbyn's crimes onto his accuser.

Nobody is accusing Hodges of being anti-semitic. The only one suggesting that as far as I can see is Emmeline, I think in error. But here you are, repeating the smear against Corbyn. I am NOT surprised, am I.

No, it's not in error. There are people on Twitter who called him anti-semitic because they misunderstood his stance. I'm not saying anyone here definitely thinks that, hence the "IF" (and there are lots of silent guests on these threads).

ronmcd wrote:Nobody is accusing Hodges of being anti-semitic.

No, of course not.

ronmcd wrote:But here you are, repeating the smear against Corbyn. I am NOT surprised, am I.

Hardly a smear if it's true, is it. I know a lot of people in politics, many of them have been in politics just as long as Jeremy, and amazingly not one of them has freely associated with anti-semites and Holocaust deniers.

Corbyn has similar politics and associates with the same people George Galloway does, Galloway was kicked out of the party which shows how nutty Corbyn is

They are very different characters though. Corbyn is polite and soft spoken, whereas Galloway is a gobshite. Which I suppose, if anything, shows how a calm, considered approach rather than a full-on confrontational assault is a much better way of getting people to take notice. A lesson that many Labour supporters not a million miles away could learn from.

Corbyn also doesn't misrepresent other people's views & arguments. A lesson that some LibDem supporters not a million miles away could learn from. Just sayin'.

Emmeline wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Not aimed at you in particular, Emme, but I'm fucking heartily sick of people arguing that the only way to engage with an electorate that's just voted Tory is to be Tories, no matter your political party.

If we're going to talk about parallel universes and Alice in Wonderland politics, that's what does my head in.

Not aimed at you in particular either but I'm fucking heartily sick of people chucking the word "Tory" around at people who don't think Corbyn is the fucking dog's bollocks.

Fair enough, but the argument does get made depressingly often, including recently by Tony Blair, which you brought here approvingly. It's really got very, very little to do with Corbyn - people were despairing of it when Labour came out with that idiotic mug, and whether Labour were now red Tories was debated in Scotland when some in Labour advocated tactically voting for the Tories to keep the SNP out, both of which pre-date Corbyn's rise.

If Corbyn weren't running, you can be sure that there would still be people who were tearing their hair out at the same argument being made by people like Liz Kendall, because the reason people hate the argument and think it's bollocks isn't because it's anti-Corbyn, it's because it's politically suicidal bollocks. How well are its most high profile backers - people like Kendall and Blair - doing in terms of getting the electorate on side? They're about as popular as the LibDems or ebola.

OlivierK wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Not aimed at you in particular, Emme, but I'm fucking heartily sick of people arguing that the only way to engage with an electorate that's just voted Tory is to be Tories, no matter your political party.

If we're going to talk about parallel universes and Alice in Wonderland politics, that's what does my head in.

Not aimed at you in particular either but I'm fucking heartily sick of people chucking the word "Tory" around at people who don't think Corbyn is the fucking dog's bollocks.

Fair enough, but the argument does get made depressingly often, including recently by Tony Blair, which you brought here approvingly. It's really got very, very little to do with Corbyn - people were despairing of it when Labour came out with that idiotic mug, and whether Labour were now red Tories was debated in Scotland when some in Labour advocated tactically voting for the Tories to keep the SNP out, both of which pre-date Corbyn's rise.

If Corbyn weren't running, you can be sure that there would still be people who were tearing their hair out at the same argument being made by people like Liz Kendall, because the reason people hate the argument and think it's bollocks isn't because it's anti-Corbyn, it's because it's politically suicidal bollocks. How well are its most high profile backers - people like Kendall and Blair - doing in terms of getting the electorate on side? They're about as popular as the LibDems or ebola.

Yup.

I certainly wouldn't call Labour voters Tories, although when watching the newsnight panel last week I thought some of them if not all were more aligned with the Tories than Labour. But that didnt make them tories, or labour members, just average voters who dont have any loyalty to a party. But the POLICIES the POLITICIANS and especially leadership have pursued are seen as Tory, certainly round my way.

What's hilarious about it is the way it seems to be just the name Tory that offends Labour politicians (again, Im talking politicians not voters Emmeline) rather than the Tory policies they have been pursuing.

To me and many in Scotland, Labour became Tories in all but name. I guess it's the same as the current argument over principle vs electability (supposed) in the leadership campaign - I'd rather have the politicians with principle.

ronmcd wrote:What's hilarious about it is the way it seems to be just the name Tory that offends Labour politicians (again, Im talking politicians not voters Emmeline) rather than the Tory policies they have been pursuing.

Like all skeptics, what offends me is that it's never explained how policies that are claimed to be "Tory policies" are, in fact, Tory.

Strontium Dog wrote:

ronmcd wrote:What's hilarious about it is the way it seems to be just the name Tory that offends Labour politicians (again, Im talking politicians not voters Emmeline) rather than the Tory policies they have been pursuing.

Like all skeptics, what offends me is that it's never explained how policies that are claimed to be "Tory policies" are, in fact, Tory.

If there's one single thing I really genuinely couldn't give a shit about, it's offending you.

Oh, that much is obvious from the effort you put into doing just that. One day those evil liberals and their freedom-loving ways will be annihilated, comrade

Strontium Dog wrote:Oh, that much is obvious from the effort you put into doing just that. One day those evil liberals and their freedom-loving ways will be annihilated, comrade

Not sure either part of that makes sense, but okay.

Strontium Dog wrote:

ronmcd wrote:What's hilarious about it is the way it seems to be just the name Tory that offends Labour politicians (again, Im talking politicians not voters Emmeline) rather than the Tory policies they have been pursuing.

Like all skeptics, what offends me is that it's never explained how policies that are claimed to be "Tory policies" are, in fact, Tory.

Really?

It's explained ad nauseam.

Fixing the deficit by regressively cutting spending on services (rather than by increasing revenue, or cutting spending on things like Trident) is the Tory way, and Labour were for it, but just a little less. Blaming poor services on pressure from immigrants rather than underinvestment is the Tory way, and Labour mimicked it. Claiming that governments need to be pro-business, while staying relatively silent on governments' need to be pro-social, is the Tory way, and people like Cooper are still going on that way now.

You yourself keep reminding people how Labour and the Tories had the same approach to university fees, and now you say that it's never explained how Labour has taken on Tory policies, even though you're one of the one's who's taken on the task of explaining it. You spent most of the election campaign spraying around the term "Labservative" because you felt Labour and the Tories were peas in a pod, and now you think nobody's ever explained how Labour policies have become more Tory? I mean, seriously: what the fuck?

OlivierK wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

ronmcd wrote:What's hilarious about it is the way it seems to be just the name Tory that offends Labour politicians (again, Im talking politicians not voters Emmeline) rather than the Tory policies they have been pursuing.

Like all skeptics, what offends me is that it's never explained how policies that are claimed to be "Tory policies" are, in fact, Tory.

Really?

It's explained ad nauseam.

Fixing the deficit by regressively cutting spending on services (rather than by increasing revenue, or cutting spending on things like Trident) is the Tory way, and Labour were for it, but just a little less. Blaming poor services on pressure from immigrants rather than underinvestment is the Tory way, and Labour mimicked it. Claiming that governments need to be pro-business, while staying relatively silent on governments' need to be pro-social, is the Tory way, and people like Cooper are still going on that way now.

You yourself keep reminding people how Labour and the Tories had the same approach to university fees, and now you say that it's never explained how Labour has taken on Tory policies, even though you're one of the one's who's taken on the task of explaining it. You spent most of the election campaign spraying around the term "Labservative" because you felt Labour and the Tories were peas in a pod, and now you think nobody's ever explained how Labour policies have become more Tory? I mean, seriously: what the fuck?

That built to a fine crescendo

Surely we want our politicians - of whichever flavour - to have principles underpinning their policies, put those policies to the public, and (controversial thought ...) try to convince the public of their merits. Perhaps even changing the minds of people based on argument?

What seems to be popular with our politicians and commentators is the idea principles only matter if they are *currently* popular with a majority of the *current subset* of the population who could be bothered to vote last time, human beings that current wisdom dictates are for some reason utterly immovable in their preferred policies.

That's not a principle I want to vote for. What the fuck is the point?

Oooh, that's a better avatar. Juvenile, but somehow satisfying.

OlivierK wrote: Claiming that governments need to be pro-business, while staying relatively silent on governments' need to be pro-social, is the Tory way, and people like Cooper are still going on that way now.

Bollocks!

Cooper has made it clear how pro-social she is but Corbynites just shut their ears & sing LaLaLa whenever she speaks.

Beatsong wrote:Re: Immigration -

Among the various leadership candidates, the only actual meaningful noise I've heard on the subject (as opposed to "hey, let's make a mug!" type transparent nonsense) has come from Corbyn. He has suggested that he might consider campaigning for leaving the EU, if the terms of our membership can't be renegotiated to do something about large scale tax avoidance by the rich and barriers in EU legislation to workers' rights.

Does that count as "connecting with people about their concerns"?

What?
Any data on this? It is all news to me. Barriers in EU legislation to worker's rights? Since when is that an EU problem?
Just because Britain's workers are some of the most poorly unprotected has nothing to do with the EU.

The fact that Corbyn would leave the EU just shows his understanding of the EU is on a par with Cameron literally zero.

Emmeline wrote:

OlivierK wrote: Claiming that governments need to be pro-business, while staying relatively silent on governments' need to be pro-social, is the Tory way, and people like Cooper are still going on that way now.

Bollocks!

Cooper has made it clear how pro-social she is but Corbynites just shut their ears & sing LaLaLa whenever she speaks.

That is the Corbynite way. Why listen when you know you are right. Intelligent politics? My arse.