Labour now and then

until they show that they are in opposition they will struggle to gain support.By supporting the tories or abstaing which is tantamount to the same thing they have lost credibility .In Scotland we said we didn't leave Labour THEY left us.Sadly Ms Dugdale changes her mind on a daily basis to suit the press or her mood ,if they ever want to get their supporters back they'll need to prove they actually know what their policies are and how they would implement them .Dont see that happening anytime soon.The Labour party is no longer the party of the working classes it was....and thats what lost them Scotland.

On the previous Labour thread several people said thst they think Yvette Cooper would be a good (or better than Corbyn anyway) leader of the Party. I don't agree. Here's why: she wants already horrendously powerful companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter to act as censors for the public. WHAT!? ? ? ? Give them even more power? How stupid can you get, Yvette?

At least Corbyn is a powerless political twerp (political, not personal comment), thank goodness. Mind you, for all I know he's not stupid about censorship by powerful companies.

Now there's a thought!

You have no problem with the really vile stuff on Twitter etc ?

I've taken the liberty of repeating one my posts on the 'other' Labour thread to connect with 'link' below.

Possible Labour Leader if not Corbyn?
I think Chuka Umuna knew he was going for Leader too soon and he could well be a candidate if Corbyn ever went back to the back benches.
John McDonnell fancies himself but he he only stands a chance if Corbyn's' Momentum Party ' gets behind him and ' the Unions '
The up and coming Union election for Unite could well be pointer too . If Len Mc Clusky hangs on he could well back McDonnell but if Gerard Coyne wins who knows.

Coyne could well be a breath of fresh air for the Union Movement.
-----

I have been a vociferous poster from the inception of Momentum and said it was a 'Party within a Party' from the moment it started. It is a Party for Corbyn not for The Labour Party.

This is an interesting article for those who understand what/where Momentum are 'still ' heading. To those who deny / believe in Momentum then obviously they will not agree.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/18/secret-tape-reveals-momentum-plot-to-link-with-unite-seize-control-of-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw

Extract

"On the tape, obtained by the Observer, Lansman issues a call to arms to Momentum supporters, saying they need to make sure the left is far better represented in key positions at all levels of the party so they have control over the levers of power when Corbyn departs and the succession is decided.

Most controversially, Lansman says that if his ally Len McCluskey secures re-election as general secretary of Unite in an internal election next month, the super-union will then link directly to Momentum by formally affiliating to it, in what critics fear would amount to a massive shift of power and financial resources to the pro-Corbyn left.

Announcing what he implies is a done deal with McCluskey, Lansman tells the audience: “Assuming that Len McCluskey wins the general secretaryship, which I think he will, Unite will affiliate to Momentum and will fully participate in Momentum, as will the CWU [the Communications Workers’ Union].”

The extent to which the left is mobilising behind the scenes and looking to Unite to back it at national and constituency levels will greatly alarm Labour moderates. Lansman spells out how Momentum currently lacks money. His mention of a link-up with Unite will invite inevitable speculation that the country’s biggest union – and Labour’s largest donor – is preparing to give money, as well as organisational support, to Momentum, too."

Last night, Gerard Coyne, the Unite official who is challenging McCluskey, said there appeared to be a plot to use union members’ cash to fund the hard left. “This shocking revelation reveals a secret hard-left plot by Len McCluskey to seize control of the Labour party in perpetuity using cash taken from hard-working members of Unite,” Coyne said.

“As far as Len McCluskey is concerned, Unite’s members’ money is his to play with as he chooses, from taking out a loan to allow him to buy a luxury London apartment to propping up the ultra left. This is not what trade unions are for. It is time for a change.”

I reiterate Momentum/Unite /McClusky et al are a ' Party within a Party' and I hope Gerard Coyne wins the Unite Election but I dare say he will have to battle every day if he does not only for his Union Members but the influences that have surrounded Labour and Corbyn since he became Labour Leader.

" At least Corbyn is a powerless political twerp "

Oh no he isn't. He has his own Party.

Explains what Corbyn meant by saying he was staying untill the job is done

thatbags, Yvette Cooper is chair of the home affairs select committe , all decisions are made by the committee not by thr chair alone

Good (reply to AB).

Meanwhile Nick Cohen doesn't have tear into the Labour Party leadership in the Observer today.

Mind you, the rest of the members of the committee may be as daft about censorship as she is ?

Yes, POGS, Corbyn has his own party but it is a useless party at the moment and looks to remain so while Corbyn is leader. Check out that Nick Cohen article.

thatbags, how can you condon the vile stuff on these sites? You are not allowed to stand in the market square with a banner stating Jews got what they deserved in the gas chambers but you think this is acceptable on those sites? You think deaths threats ,which if hand written is against the law, is acceptable on these sites ?

I believe in free speech, AB. That doesn't mean I condone nastiness. It means I think we have to challenge it and stand up to it openly. Bad ideas and badness generally are not defeated by hiding them. They are defeated by being exposed as the trash they are.

Then there is a lot of stuff that some people say is hate speech which others say is not, so how do we decide and who is the we who get to decide?

We cannot post as we wish on this forum thatbags, I agree with this, you want free speech here no matter what is said?

For instance, something I saw recently said that the phrase "Ban Islam" was hate speech. I don't agree, just as I wouldn't call phrases like "Ban religion" or ban atheism or ban Christianity hate speech. They are just stupid, and not only because we can't ban them; their basis is beliefs and ideas and myths; you can't ban stuff like that; you can't 'police' people's thoughts. Nor should you. But we can and should openly and loudly dismiss them as stupid.

Also death threats and rape threats are against the law yet you think these should be allowed and challenged ?

I want free speech in the world whatever is said except when it threatens someone's physical safety. So death threats should be policed. They are policed.

They should also be callenged by people other than police and lawmakers.

The police cannot check all that is posted on these sites , the select committee wants those who make millions from these sites to take responsibility for them, you blame Yvette Cooper .

It's impossible to dismiss people as stupid without being accused of being part of some élite.

I think you're living in a bubble, thatbags, if you think it's possible to dismiss stupidity and hate with rational argument.

There was a documentary in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago about online trolls. Some of them were unhinged, but it's difficult to see them like that, if you're the target of hate speech.

It's also known that various extreme groups and even governments use social media to generate hate speech. Some of it is really nasty stuff. I agree with you that we all need to be more aware, but I also think that the owners of social media sites need to take some responsibility. The enormity of policing is why MSN/Microsoft withdrew all its social media sites.

Good post Daphne

Thank you :-)

Who, employed by the social media sites, would be the judges? That is the problem that most people don't seem to see.

Someone who, for whatever reason, good or bad, is easily offended would say some things are hate speech which aren't. How is that fair?

Free speech is not free if one can't say things that might offend someone somewhere. It's not hate speech if offence was not intended. Who decides that (i.e. whether offence is to a person rather than an open argumentative challenge to an idea)? It cannot be decided fairly because people disagree about the fundamentals—what counts as—offence, argument, simple disagreement, etc).

It's not possible to offend a belief or an idea therefore, to use the earlier example, saying "ban Islam" (or any other religion) is not hate speech. It's stupid speech.

The one I struggle with the most is Holocaust denial. In some countries I believe you can be jailed for saying the Holocaust didn't happen. But I don't see how jailing someone for believing misinformation is going to stop them believing it, so what's the point? It's the 'offensive to Jews' (and others!) equivalent of denying the moon landings–completely loopy.
I'm against anti-semitism but I don't see how banning people from being ignorant about historical facts and from believing nonsense helps anyone. Arguing strongly and vociferously against anti-semitism (and similar stuff) and policing threats against Jews, or whoever, is a much better approach in my view.

And we do that already.

An interesting (but long) read about the British Left,past and future:

www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/british-left-crossroads-brexit

Sorry thatbags I still think you're living in a bubble if you've never seen the really nasty, dangerous stuff floating around social media.