Labour MPs

What hostility?

Someone arguing a point, or several, is not hostility.

"You may think attending a conference but leaving before the leader makes his/her speech is acceptable "

This is what I mean when I complain that there are often posts on this thread which seek to make a fight where none exists. I made no mention of leaving conferences, never said anything at all about acceptability/ non-acceptability.

I said that there was no need for any string-pulling to cause trouble, as human beings are quite capable of the back-stabbing etc off their own bats.

You seem to say that the tory party condone back-stabbing but the labour party don't. I said that all of them are human.

Many posts on this thread greet Corbyn as though he came down from heaven with a choir of angels singing. I doubted whether he was as perfect as that, no-one is.

More power to his elbow, but if you build him up on too high a pedestal he will have great difficulty balancing there.

"It's not difficult and should be within the capabilities of anyone on the forum. I don't think getting annoyed because someone doesn't feed you information helps discussion."

Firstly I wasn't 'annoyed' - where did that come from? In fact I've not posted since I asked the question, which appears to have offended GG so much

Secondly, the first sentence sounds hostile, to me at least. If not hostile then it's rude.

I am familiar with the term 'grass roots' but from the way that 'grass root members' was used in two different contexts it was not clear what Annie meant.

It was not your post that sounded annoyed "Anya" or at least it didn't until it was followed up. I have now been assured that the follow up poster was not annoyed either and, just so we all understand I am gladdened to hear that no one was annoyed. I still think that we get posts demanding information which could be researched by the poster all to often but, perhaps, this was not one of them.

Perhaps Elegran you complain to often? Your choice

Elegran complain??

I have always found Elegran to be extremely fair and reasonable, neither carping nor complaining, but sensible.

I do feel that some posters posts sound very defensive if anyone questions anything at all about the new Leader of the Opposition, which may come over as a form of attack.

He is, after all, only human - isn't he?
Even some newly appointed members of his Shadow Cabinet are beginning to question some of his principles and ideals. Perhaps they are more pragmatic than he, and they think that pedestal is too high.

With a left wing Labour government the unions rule

It was for this reason that Trident wasnt discussed at conference[I have been away for 3 days so this may have been discussed/picked up elsewhere].

Elegran I do apologise - you did complain - about posts picking fights where none exist
Which is a fairly reasonable assertion imo.

You so wrong soon, and yes it has been discussed

Rosequartz, it was Elegran herself who said she complains

Reading this thread for the first time, there are so many things I dont know where to start.

Corbyn needs to know he can trust people. Yeah right.
Backstabbing is not allowed. Yeah right.
They should be fighting Tories not Corbyn. Yeah right.
Corbyn could be trusted, they knew where he stood. By that definition, those on the right can do the same cant they, they just keep speaking up loudly. Oh, and not resign.

Slight paraphrasing may have gone on with the above.

dj post tues 16.51pm What did you expect? Them all to roll over? Really?

I would be interested how JC is going to make employers shorten hours and pay more. Labour doesn't want that! And then clapping and an ovation from the conference.
Of course they don't want it but Labour can't alter it unless they nationalise all industry and you will soon have the trodden down factories of communist countries.
Those conference people were pleased to be sitting there adoring their leader. I wouldn't trust them an inch. Wait until he puts a foot wrong and they will be on their phones telling him where to get off and worse.

Much confusion now reigns in the shadow cabinet and with Labour MPs, as Corbyn says he (as PM) ......future fantasy land btw, would ' never, under any circumstances use nuclear weapons.' where is the discussion he espouses? Now he could never be PM, precisely because he has said that.
No government ( in the West) would ever want to use them, but if we don't have any, or say openly we would never use them ( which amounts to the same thing)that leaves our country open to threats ( nuclear in nature) from any aggresive country or group within a country who chooses to threaten us.
So he has just ruled himself out of any future as Prime Minister, not that he was exactly viable anyway.

Well sorted then isn't it , good

Rosequartz, it was Elegran herself who said she complains
anniebach I realised that afterwards! [seniormoment] - I posted just afterwards:
Elegran I do apologise - you did complain

soon I don't think it was because of the Unions that Trident wasn't discussed (unless I heard it wrong) - the Unions are worried about the job losses which could ensue.

you will soon have the trodden down factories of communist countries
With the rich elite at the top of the tree and the downtrodden masses at the bottom (and the educated professionals and dissenters being 'disappeared')

Plus ca change etc

That's OK, rosequartz Thank you for noticing that i don't, in fact, complain very often.

When I do, it is mostly because someone has twisted a post and used their interpretation of it as a stick with which to beat the poster.

Sadly, political and religious discussions (in the big wide world as well as on GN) tend to go that way.

Elegran

twisted a post and used their interpretation of it as a stick
Perhaps it's because other posters can't see facial expressions, hear the intonations and are therefore unable to interpret nuances or subtle meanings.
Or perhaps they can only see things from a certain angle.
'If you're not for me you must be against me' - which is not necessarily true.

Have to ask Elegran, your post re twisting post, is that another complaint or an explanation for previous complains ?

It is an ongoing comment, not new, based on many examples of reading neutral posts which have been treated as though they were attacks. A form of "carrying the war to the enemy" - except that in the main the post was not from an enemy, just an observer.

You will probably now - quite reasonably - ask me for chapter and verse. Sorry, but that would involve trawling with the incompetent Gransnet search engine, and I CBA.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/a-list-of-official-rebukes-for-tory-lies/

Just to stir the mix a bit more.

Did this happen under Labour?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34404651

rq - as I understood it, the unions didnt want it discussed because of the jobs. So it wasnt discussed, ie the unions dictated what was and wasnt discussed.