durhamjen

Sometimes it ain't what was said but the way it was said that I found objectionable. There have been some very aggressively worded posts. That certainly made me swerve the political threads.

There you go again there isn't an 'approved group' there never has been. Approved policies-yes. But my policies are not far left. My GF was a communist, and believed all industy and the banks should be nationalised-now he was far-left. And indeed the government of 1948 could be described as 'far left' But these are not the policies of the Labour party today.

Well, Trisher, perhaps you were one of the approved. Some of us were not, were frequently though to be in the "other camp", and our posts suspected of having meanings other than what we intended.

Thought to be, not though to be - that changes it completely

If politicians put forward policies one doesn't agree with, presumably one can say so without having to produce policies oneself? What I'm trying to say, trisher, is that I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect gransnetters to come up with policies as if they were professional politicians. I think it's allright for non-politicians to look at policies that are presented to them and decide which, if any, they like.

So, for example, based on that it's not unreasonable for a gransnetter to say that she thinks renationalisation is not a good idea or that Universal Credit is a bad idea.

We should all have our manifestos ready Baggs

I had mine all lined up for the last Labour government but then they turned out to be Tories - apparently!

^I wonder if Whitewave regrets the day she learnt to link.
That's when the shit hit the fan.^
Probably.
It was as if someone else had taken over her computer

and our posts suspected of having meanings other than what we intended.
Yes, that was always very odd, you found that you were supposed to have said something that you never did say!

It's a political trick.

I think I was relegated to the naughty step when I committed heinous crime of spelling Guardian wrong

I missed ww's links. Was it fun?

pah! Even the Guardian spelled Guardian wrong sometimes. That's why it was so often called the Grauniad.

baggs
No it wasn't. IMO it was truly awful but Whitewave kept defending it and couldn't see anything wrong.
I don't know if it's still there, but it was on the last Corbyn thread.

I didn't open the links, Baggs, but one was typed out in full.

Not at all like her usual posts

Why should we lay our own policies on the line here on GN?
As Baggs says, we can react to policies the government puts forward and also react to proposed policies that the Opposition puts forwards.
We can say what we would like to happen in an ideal world, we can also say what we would like to happen given that there aren’t never ending pots of gold, but when it comes down to it we are not politicians.
The Conservatives are branded as evil by some GN posters
(Really?) and t’other side as positively angelic.Therefore anyone who doesn’t support JC wholeheartedly is of ‘the other’ and to be rooted out and denounced, a bit like Momentum are doing with LP councillors and moderate MP’s.
It’s a short step away from flaming torches and pitchforks at the ready.

You see there it is again- ^Therefore anyone who doesn’t support JC wholeheartedly is of ‘the other’ and to be rooted out and denounced, a bit like Momentum are doing with LP councillors and moderate MP’s.
It’s a short step away from flaming torches and pitchforks at the ready^
Now if I had accused people of being reactionary and right wing I would be being castigated.
As for policies if you don't know the sort of policies you believe in, if you don't have opinions about the policies of the different parties, what the hell are you posing arguments on a politics thread for? Just so that you can snipe at the beliefs of other posters perhaps?
And as for the Conservatives being evil, of course they are not. They are however a party founded in wealth, based on the retention of that wealth and the reduction in size of the state.
And I'm not interested in your OWN policies just in the policies you do or do not support.

This isn’t actually a politics thread trisher.....
Your tone is exactly what puts people off posting.

And yours as always lemon. is a model of politeness. Expressing some of the views that may have contributed to people leaving GN, and generally bringing the personal into an arena I have always considered to be for objective discussion and not name calling.

Where is the ‘personal’ in my posts trisher whereas you have just demonstrated that you do bring ‘personal’ into your own.
If expressing my views has caused anyone to leave GN then they must be shrinking violets indeed.
I commented on your tone as you said ‘if you don’t have opinions about the policies of the different parties what the
Hell are you posing arguments on a politics thread for, just so that you can snipe at the beliefs of other posters?’

To me, that is an aggressive tone.

You see lemon you accuse people of supporting JC , of denouncing and rooting out disagreement. Why? That is personal. It doesn't add anything to any discussion, apart I suppose form providing you with some personal amusement. It isn't objective. It isn't relevant and quite frankly it's boring.
I only brought personal into the debate after you did. But no point in discussing this. No doubt you will continue to post unfounded accusations and reduce any political arguments to this level, which is possibly why people leave . Nothing to do with being "shrinking violets" just of wanting political debate to be interesting and informative and not just a lot of vindictive, repetetive rants.
My tone may be agressive but it does not label or demonise people.

There is no may about it trisher your tone and content
is aggressive.

lemongrove - you keep failing to produce your manifesto.
I despair sometimes.

What with looking after DGC and WI committee meetings and a bit of shopping and gardening Jalima the time just flies by!

No excuse!

On a lughter note, I had to do a double-take on reading your last post, lemongrove - for a brief moment, I thought you were on a WW1 committee! Definitely a 'Should've gone to Specsavers' moment!