The Hit List 2016

Well it was a foul subject that was the basis of the thread started by a person who can only discuss one matter "Jeremy Corbyn" who she has an obsession with.

Bye for now.

What infuriates you Grandad is that annie has, and always has had the courage of her convictions which are clearly different to yours, and bravely continues to be true to those convictions despite relentless sneering, bordering on bullying comments from you and others. A lot of us on here, whatever our political beliefs, admire annie for her steadfastness, and her refusal to be browbeaten into silence over things she sincerely believes. In your world Grandad, your word is clearly law! On here it is not, something perhaps you need to take on board!!

I agree about the foul language annie. If people need to resort to swearing then their command of the English language is pretty limited!!
Don't flatter yourself Grandad!! Not many of us would want to work in your office!!!!!! How on earth can a conversation about a hit list be a 'foul subject'!! Over reaction comes to mind!!?

niggly, it’s an attempt to get the thread deleted. I started the thread so anyone who wishes can check when an MP is up for deselection if they are on this list which was published in March 2016.

The obscene language and lavatorial language and the request to delete this thread is simply because it shows what is going on in the Corbyn/Momentum Party.

Yes I am bullied by some , think what goes on in local party meetings , councillors driven out, MP’s getting vile tweets .

Add comment | Report | Private message Grandad1943 Fri 14-Sep-18 08:09:19
MaryEliza, you will always get some shower of shit try to defend anything.
Is this language really necessary ? Is it your normal turn of phrase Grandad? I am thankful it is not the sort of thing I usually encounter.
And chewing tobacco I have aways found a disgusting habit
And is this meant as a slur or to insult Chewbacca?
Childish.

I have worked for years where I have had to go to building sites, never once have I had this language used to address me or in my company.

Let us remember those who have to read such language and threats of rape every day.

Well I for one am not in the slightest bit surprised where my MP sits on the list. Thank you for sharing though Annie I shall be showing it to my dad (to prove a sore point) later.

Coming to this a bit late, I can see nothing “foul” in quoting a published list which clearly existed in 2016.
Of course there are anomalies as it would not appear to have been updated by its originators - tragically we lost Jo Cox, others, like Sadiq Khan and that fine historian Tristram Hunt are no longer MPs and there may be others I am unaware of.
But what strikes me is the inclusion in the extreme RH (and second from the right ) columns of what I and I suspect others see as among the most acceptable faces of the Labour Party - Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis, Stella Creasy, Chuka Umunna, Stephen Kinnock, Hilary Benn. Any of these IMO were they to form the Opposiition front bench would attract such widespread support they woul rapidly become the government front bench.
How on earth can there be a legitimate objection to bringing this list to our attention?

Just imagine what the shadow Cabinet would be like if the names in Maws post ,above this one, were part of the shadow Cabinet , bring on a general election .

I accept many here are not supporters of the Labour Party but I hope this explains why I keep on, and on, and on ! about the centre left. This is the true Labour Party which I have supported for over fifty years.

There is no such thing as a perfect political party .

Maryeliza jumping on the bandwagon I see, in a predictably foul mouthed way, and joining Grandad [equally foul mouthed.]
all an attempt to close the thread down, so obvious!

the list the OP posted is very very interesting.

.lemon, when deselection of a Labour MP hits the news their name will be found in the hit list, not those who won seats in 2017 though, this list was published by The Times in 2016.

annie, speaking for myself, I would be absolutely delighted to see the names you mention forming the opposition. The thought of a Corbyn run government is quite frightening, the thought of a Hilary Benn (?) government is perfectly acceptable as all these MP's you name are thoughtful, realistic responsible (sane!) politicians. They would undoubtedly keep the government on its toes and almost certainly add pertinent value to debate! If only this could be brought about I'd vote for them! although they'd have no trouble winning an election without me!!

How on earth can there be a legitimate objection to bringing this list to our attention?

There can be no legitimate objection whatsoever, and, as this appears to be an ongoing problem then it is still relevant today and we need to be reminded of it.

The fact that Jo Cox was on this list, which was compiled before her tragic death, is worrying. Because she was a good and decent MP who was a campaigner for human rights and yet was placed on this list says much more about Corbyn and whoever compiled this list than it does about Jo Cox.

As I said, sinister.

Grandad had you in fact heard of Jo Cox before her tragic death? Perhaps not, unless you helped to compile the list, so perhaps your protests are no more than posturing.
Should the list be amended as I notice that the list states RIP Michael Meacher?
There are many good and decent MPs in the 'Negative' and 'Hostile' groups and I am sure they must be proud to have Jo's name listed alongside them.

LauraGransnet, please don’t remove the thread , it wasn’t started to enrage anyone or to encourage foul language . Removing it would show the way to get any thread removed.

Thank you.

LauraGransnet…. that is exactly what a couple of posters want, a close down of this thread, has HQ read the posts by Grandad and maryeliza?!
Shutting down a thread when certain posters want it done [instead of deleting their posts] is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and unfair to the majority on here.
I rarely complain about things but think GN need to review how they handle things.
Your message could have come just after the foul messages by those posters for instance.

Laura it is an interesting thread and relevant at the moment, too.

It's a pity one or two are trying to get it deleted by their foul language and personal attacks - do personal attacks not get deleted nowadays?

Dear LauraGransnet instead of threatening to remove the thread altogether, which may well be the not too hidden agenda of the eff-ers and blinders , why not merely delete the offensive posts?
Babies and bath water spring to mind, plus the prospect of some people successfully sabotaging a legitimate thread.
You would also be deleting perfectly legitimate opinions and discussion, thereby effectively censoring thinking posters instead of playing into the hands of others.

X post with lemongrove

Getting back to the 'list', although I suspect many MP's already knew about it and the machinations of Corbyn's office and Momentum to get anyone not 'on message' [not a Corbyn fan] either deselected in the future or subject perhaps to an intimidation programme, the wider public didn't know more, now they do.
It seems to me that by all the drip drip drip things these very left wing bullyboys are doing is having an effect, but not the one they wanted perhaps, everybody is wise to them now.Wise to Corbyn too, with all his dodgy friends and alliances.

plus the prospect of some people successfully sabotaging a legitimate thread.

That is a worrying prospect; it shuts down debate and opinions other than those acceptable to certain posters.
That is exactly the same reason for the existence of The List!

Dear GNHQ - Can I add my support for this thread. I'm finding it interesting and informative. I am not offended by the discussion, but I am offended by the sweary posts. These are what need to be deleted, not the whole thread.

Well having been busy with HODs I come late to this thread which is a discussion about a debatable list from a dodgy source. The telling line is in the article
The Times claims the list comes from a member of staff from the leader’s office and was written in January
The Times claims well I suppose if you are naive enough to believe a right wing paper owned by someone who has a vested interest in destroying the Labour Party you might believe the list. As it is the provenance is so dodgy it would never stand up to examination.
So you are in fact discussing a fabrication.

HODS - what are they*trisher*?