HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » With just one word, Labou...

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:46 AM

 

With just one word, Labour MPs reveal utter contempt for Corbyn supporters

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/28/just-one-word-labour-mps-reveal-utter-contempt-corbyn-supporters-image/

One MP referred to the protesters as animals, purportedly saying to Corbyn during the parliamentary Labour party meeting on 27 June:

those are your dogs outside

Meanwhile former Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray, is quoted by The Mirror as asking the party leadership to:

call the dogs off

This is how anti-Corbyn ministers in the Labour party see democratic protests in support of a democratically elected leader, apparently.

And these are the people they were referring to so disrespectfully:


43 replies, 2559 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply With just one word, Labour MPs reveal utter contempt for Corbyn supporters (Original post)
Ken Burch Jun 2016 OP
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #1
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #2
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #3
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #4
T_i_B Jun 2016 #17
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #21
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2016 #39
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #40
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2016 #41
Ken Burch Jul 2016 #42
Spider Jerusalem Jul 2016 #43
Dworkin Jul 2016 #38
LeftishBrit Jun 2016 #18
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #5
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #6
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #7
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #10
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #11
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #22
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #8
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #9
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #12
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #14
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #15
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #25
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #27
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #28
LeftishBrit Jun 2016 #29
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #31
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #16
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #26
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #32
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #33
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #34
LeftishBrit Jun 2016 #19
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #13
LeftishBrit Jun 2016 #20
LeftishBrit Jun 2016 #30
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #23
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #24
Denzil_DC Jun 2016 #35
Ken Burch Jun 2016 #36
Nihil Jul 2016 #37

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:16 AM

1. When referring to the stoppers and the entryists its pretty accurate.

Ian Murray was referring to the Corbyn supports who have been picketing his office and harassing his family members.

I wish Corbyn had put as much effort into the getting the vote out for Remain as he has for self preservation. Remain probably would have won. Then the activists would not have been quite so livid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:33 AM

2. It's not activists being livid, it's right-wing Labour MPs

 

The ones who never wanted democracy restored to the party.

Corbyn did all he could have done to help Remain.

The truth is, none of the anti-Corbynites spoke effectively for the Remain position, or were able to convey a sense that they realized they were wrong to help cause and extend the long-term economic collapse in the north of England which created the conditions for the Leave victory...OR gave any indication that they would fight to get the EU to stop imposing the Europe-wide austerity that fed mass EU migration to the UK.

Would you agree that, if a leadership vote comes and the rules are changed to bar Corbyn or anyone else on the Labour Left from from standing again, no one elected in such a ballot could truly be considered a legitimate winner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:04 AM

3. Well, I know a lot of Labour Party activists

and they are livid. These activists have been working flat since the start of the year on the various election campaigns that have been held in the UK.

The centre have never loved Corbyn but this revolt involves far more than the PLP, nevermind the rump of Progress MPs.

I think Corbyn needs to follow the same nomination rules as any other candidate. Right now I would not put his chance of winning that high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:14 AM

4. It wasn't possible to make passionate pro-Remain speeches

 

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

And still be capable afterwards of calling for any real changes in the EU. Thum-thumping meant unquestioning support of everything Merkel has done including the persecution of Greece(an act no anti-Corbyn MP ever denounced, AFAIK).

If Corbyn is dumped, the MPs will rewrite the future leadership election rules so only right-wingers can ever stand for the leadership again. This will guarantee that internal democracy is never restored, which will guarantee that no one but the party leader decides policy, which will guarantee that the party never stands on a non-Blairite, non-militarist platform again, which will make any possible future Labour electoral victory meaningless.

Labour without democratic internal governance and permanently stripped of any radicalism will have no reason to exist. Blairism has no more ideas at all and nothing to offer in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 02:57 PM

17. Yes it was possible

Plenty of people did just that. Vernon Coaker being an obvious example, not to mention a number of Lib Dems and Greens. I know this from actually having taken part in the campaign!

And for the umpteenth time, the problem with Corbyn is not that he isn't right wing enough. The problem with Corbyn is that he isn't competent enough. Just compare and contrast with Aneurin Bevan (creator of the NHS) and it becomes embarrassing to be honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:31 PM

21. Then you'd be ok with John McDonnell taking over as leader?

 

No one claims he isn't competent.

If it isn't about ideology, why did every one of the people who resigned from the shadow cabinet abstain on the vote on further cuts rather than join Jeremy(who was still a backbencher at the time)in voting against them? Why did the vast majority of them support the benefits cap AND the budget charter(both of which, if a Labour government obeyed them when in power, would make the implementation of actual Labour policies impossible?)

And why do the vast majority of the PLP oppose the reintroduction of internal party democracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:23 PM

39. Explained that to you here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1088&pid=10714

The majority of the parliamentary party are probably more opposed to Corbyn as leader because he's incompetent and not fit to lead. His leadership is shambolic and essentially useless. Go watch the Vice documentary "Jeremy Corbyn: The Outsider". Go and watch Corbyn conspicuously failing to take advantage of the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith and not even mentioning him by name. Go and watch Corbyn's "communications director" blaming Corbyn's poor performance at PMQ's on "a Tory mole". As an opposition leader in Parliament he is useless, and as a potential PM-in-waiting he is a joke. A majority of the PLP are aware of this. (Hell, go and watch him addressing a rally in Parliament Square last Monday where he manages to not say the words "Brexit" or "referendum" or talk about the Labour Party's strategy or the current political environment, AT ALL, instead offering up a sermon for the converted.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:32 PM

40. Then the "rebels" should issue a statement along the lines of the OP I posted here:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:45 PM

41. No, they shouldn't

it's not clear that Corbyn can win another leadership contest; recent polling shows that a clear majority of members think he should either step down now, or before the next general election. Recent polling also shows that he's lost the support of union members. (All of this is based on info that's come out in the last few days.) And "internal party democracy" his a joke if it means that entryist £3 "registered supporters" have an equal say to full members in the leadership election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #41)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:20 PM

42. Corbyn took 49.9% of full party members on first-preference votes

 

There is no possible way every single full member who voted for someone else on the first preferences would have voted against him on every later preference. Corbyn won the leadership just as legitimately as any of the establishment candidates would have.

The "rebels" have no mandate to erase all of Corbyn's ideals and go back to where things were before...when most of them were pushing Labour to support the benefits cap and the budget charter(knowing that, in doing so, they were pushing for Labour to simply endorse the Tory manifesto and have done with it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 11:39 PM

43. And according to polling in the last week...

54% of full members want him gone either now or before the next election. There was a 29 point swing from "should remain" to "should step down now" in the space of a month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 09:14 AM

38. Agreed

TiB,

Sadly, I have to agree with your second paragraph.

D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:14 PM

18. Yes, it's perfectly possible

I was involved in the Remain campaign, and live in a very pro-Remain area, and know lots of passionately pro-Remain people - and NOT ONE of them is an uncritical fan of everything the EU does. We just knew that the alternative is far far worse.

And not every Labour opponent of Corbyn is a right-winger and very few of his former Shadow Cabinet are true Blairites: they wouldn't have been in the Shadow Cabinet in the first place if they were. I am exasperated by the infighting they're all indulging in, at a time of real crisis; but it's much more like the rush to dump football managers if their team loses, whether they are actually to blame or not, than like some ideological putsch.

And Corbyn isn't a terribly competent manager. The problem is that no other prominent member of the party seems to be either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:42 AM

5. "I think Corbyn needs to follow the same nomination rules as any other candidate."

I think that's fine.

So the Labour Party needs to follow its own rules if it wants to challenge him!

There is no provision in the Labour constitution for what was just attempted. The vote of confidence is basically a publicity stunt in an attempt to strongarm Corbyn to quit without having to go through the bother of a formal vote, clearing the way for whoever they come up with as an alternative. It is NOT the way you go about changing the leadership if you care about "nomination rules".

Corbyn, as sitting leader, has an automatic right to be on the ballot - they've sought legal advice on this, and been disappointed by the finding. Corbyn didn't invent that rule!

The correct formal way to depose him would be for an alternative candidate to come forward, and secure enough PLP signatures to go to the party for an internal election.

The pressure over the past few days was an attempt to force him to quit so they didn't have to bother with all that. If he's so rubbish and his position is so indefensible, why didn't they do that?

There are reasons why the likes of Andy Burnham (who's looking pretty good right now, not that I've ever been a great fan) want nothing at all to do with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:03 AM

6. I have more respect for Burnham now that I know he's steering clear of this.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:12 AM

7. I'm not stupid.

It's not only the the right thing to do, IMO, but it leaves him very well positioned for any coming properly called leadership election!

Seriously - if, as the poster above has said, there's such a groundswell of membership rejection of Corbyn, then why wasn't this "coup" attempted properly and legally within the rules?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:31 AM

10. Obviously that would be in his calculations.

 

Still, any distance from the plotters is a good sign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:37 AM

11. I'm not saying it's a bad thing!

Any sort of adult strategizing in Labour at the moment is to be applauded!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:32 PM

22. Agreed. n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:16 AM

8. Something needed to be done he's inept and needs to be got rid of.

There are two strains of legal advice: One says he does gain automatic entry; one says he does not. Corbyn, obviously backs the former however, somewhat ironically, during Kinnock's leadership he acted in a manner that would suggest he once believed otherwise. I suspect there will be a court case to decide this.

From what I have gathered there are no shortage of candidates nor backers for these candidates. There is, however, a desire to see JC twist in the wind a little longer.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:29 AM

9. Anyone the rebels would approve would make sure internal party democracy was never restored.

 

I hope you would agree that THAT would be a tragedy.

Labour doesn't need to forever be a party where no one but the leader has a say in what the party stands for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:39 AM

12. Show me the legitimate legal advice

that says he doesn't gain automatic entry. Go on.

I'll need to hunt out the signed advice I saw last night at some point. I guess they could keep asking till they get the answer they want.

I've posted elsewhere on this page about the backers of this anti-democratic coup. Nobody yet has piped up to try to talk me off the ledge.

If there's no shortage of candidates, where are they? Why hasn't one come forward and got the mere 51 signatures needed to trigger a legitimate challenge? - they've seemed adept enough at rallying support behind the scenes. The squabbling about the succession has begun already. The future looks bright!

Sorry, "Something needed to be done he's inept and needs to be got rid of" sounds pretty fucking sinister. Here's that well-known Labour party organ the Mail on Sunday:



Does he need to be ultra-careful cycling around London now? You're condoning suspending Labour's rules and going along with a shady cabal's moves because you don't approve of him and what he's doing? Jeez.

Here's Burnham and some of the other Labour MPs who haven't been getting wall-to-wall coverage in the MSM:



And here's Dr Éoin Clarke, one of Labour's more effective and level-headed social media stars, by no means an unquestioning Corbyn supporter (he supported Burnham):



https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/747756953535905792

Corbyn twisting in the wind? What on earth is that about?! You really want to support that sort of stupid petulance in your representatives? Polls were starting to show Labour neck-and-neck with the Tories before Monday's events. Something's twisting in the wind alright ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 08:07 AM

14. That's how we Blairites like to roll...


Sinister

Burnham had nowhere else to go. Ivan Lewis, his main competition, had already called for Corbyn to go. He couldn't run for the Mersyside mayorship because Luciana Berger so he went for the Greater Manchester gig. By all accounts he is getting hosed by Ivan Lewis. Seems the Mancs are not taking to their Scouse transplant.

172 MPs voted in the symbolic no-confidence vote on Corbyn: 51 goes into that three times (although the actual number if 50 due to one member being suspended and another murdered by fascist scum). I am sure there will be somebody by the end of the week.

I didn't say I supported the sentiment; I was just saying that this is the sentiment of some of the MPs. I do support the sentiment though. Fuck that guy, the anti-semitic chum-scrubber He's a mediocrity who hides his mediocrity in rigid ideology. Makes me ashamed to be a Gooner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 08:14 AM

15. Thanks for revealing your true colours!

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Good luck selling that to the membership.

Or maybe, as a Blairite, you're still wedded to the idea they don't matter and are an inconvenience to be manipulated and circumvented.

Been there, done that, twenty years or so ago. That's when I told Labour - and Blair in particular - "Fuck that guy."

Corbyn didn't help to trigger an illegal war whose consequences we're still reaping now - and how. Nice figurehead you got there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 07:50 AM

25. I didn't support the Iraq War

I was a moderator in GD before, during and after 'though. It was a terrible time. Accounts had been created (months in advance - many of them came with substantial donations to DU at a time when the finances were dodgy) to support the war on DU. Accounts had been created individuly tailored for the moderators so that the moderators would go easy on them (I know this sounds like a consipiracy theory but there were ha! gotcha! mails sent informing us of their actions after Bush declared victory). Mine was, ironically for this conversation, called "BlairFan".

Technically the was was not illegal as it had a UN sanction. It was profoundly immoral and the way in which consent was manufactured was disgusting. Whether it be the briefings Tory MPs were getting from the Republicans to use in the HoC, the financial threats the US made against the UK; or the lies the UK government told.

Until the Iraq War I was a "BlairFan" but never afterwards. That is not to say that I am not a Progressnik.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:01 AM

27. "Technically" is going to be up for debate all over again in the next few days,

when the Chilcot Report is released in the UK. Rumours I've been hearing are that it's going to be damning enough, but a predictable whitewash. This is the background to why some of us are so wound up about the anti-democratic attempt to depose Corbyn, who was a leading light in opposing the Iraq war, and many other counterproductive military actions since.

Meanwhile, in your fervour, you've slandered as an "anti-semite" somebody who certainly isn't that, despite the propaganda. That was one thing that made me remark that you'd shown your "true colours".

If you buy into the idea that Corbyn "palled around with terrorists", then I wonder what you'd call our government, which ended up negotiating with the IRA, saw politicians associated with them take on leading roles in the post-peace process and NI government, and secured a lasting peace as a result? If you bought into the attempted smear from the opportunist right in the UK about Corbyn's past, then people here are already debating that with you below.

You're posting in the context of the UK Group, not on GD. Many of us from the UK have different framings to those in the US. I'm bitterly opposed to the Israeli government's policies, highly sympathetic to Palestine, and virulently anti-settler.

If you want to call me an "anti-semite for that, go ahead, but I'll give you full notice now that I'll alert on any post of yours that does that, and take my chances with a jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:14 AM

28. The war should have never happened but that does mean it was illegal

As somebody who used to live in Ireland I was very happy with what the British government did. I suppose, if you want to use that as an analogy, then the IRA et al renounced violence. The anti-semites Corbyn has platformed with most certainly have not.

If you accept Israel's right to exist then you are not an anti-semite. The problem is that people Corbyn has been proud to associate himself with do not.

Why do you think this has happened because of the Cilcot Report? What role do you forsee the Leader of the Oppostion having that makes it so necessary for his removal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:26 AM

29. The war was based on lies and deception, and totally wrong

As regards Israel, I support a two-state solution, and have little time for the hardliners of either side. But I do not think that Corbyn is an anti-Semite. I think he sometimes shared platforms with dodgy types: who, in high places, hasn't? Blair was for a time very palsy-walsy with Gaddafi, who wasn't exactly known for his great love of Jews, or his devotion to non-violence. All our leaders have pandered to the far-right, anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynist, human-rights-abusing, generally awful governments of Saudi Arabia, and the last government (I nearly said 'the current government' but there basically isn't one) actually helped get them on the UN human rights council. Most of our governments have been very friendly with authoritarian, human-rights-abusing China, and some members of the last government even suggested that we emulate their industrial policies and lack of worker protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:40 AM

31. It depends what you mean by

"Israel's right to exist". I certainly don't agree with its right to exist by fragmenting Palestine to the point where it can no longer function. My objections - and Corbyn's - are shared by quite a number on the Israeli left and the saner members of their society.

I'm not interested in a deep discussion about that here, because in my experience, debating it with Americans online is a waste of time, which is why I doubt you'll see me mentioning it at all in the years since 2008, when I joined, up to now.

And you persist in that horrible anti-Corbyn slur, which means I'm even more convinced my decision in that is right.

Blairite forces are behind the attempted coup. That's not all that's happening. The timing is also because the vast majority of the PLP never wanted him as leader and have been itching for a Corbyn "failure" as an excuse to trigger concerted calls for his resignation since his election, and they all fell flat in the past because he unexpectedly kept winning by-elections etc. (in the same sense he'd have been held responsible if they'd lost).

Corbyn was on the right side of history about Iraq, however else you question his judgement. He wanted to apologize for Labour's part in it when he got elected leader, but postponed that till after the report was released. He's said that Blair should stand trial for war crimes if the report indicates that's appropriate (unlikely from what I've heard in advance, but we'll see how the media spin it as they're out for labour blood right now).

The major figures on the right of the PLP are either implicated in the Labour government in power at the time or think they did "the right thing" and have consistently opposed any inquiry, including Chilcot.

I've joined some dots about all this. I may not be right, but it's a widespread suspicion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 02:41 PM

16. Jeremy Corbyn is not an antisemite.

 

If he was, he wouldn't have suspended at least 50 party members so far for antisemitism.

The irony is, these were the people who were being sanctimonious about how evil deselection is: What they're saying is, they're entitled to lifetime reselection and no accountability to their constituency parties at all, but anyone they disagree with is expendable.

And they want to make sure internal party democracy is never restored, so that Labour can never come to life as a party again. Labour is doomed if only the leadership gets to decide what the party stands for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #16)


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:43 AM

32. I'm going to ask our mod team to URGENTLY consider whether your contributions

are fitting for the UK Group.

I can't be bothered debating with you, for reasons I outlined above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:01 AM

33. Okay, I respect your opinion and I will respect their view on the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:09 AM

34. I've just had a chat with a mod

and in view of the self-delete, I'm dropping my complaint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:15 PM

19. It's just sheer chaos and panic-stations all round

Yes, Andy Burnham does seem marginally more responsible and competent than anyone else at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 08:02 AM

13. And ...

At the very end of PMQs (so Corbyn couldn't reply - coward), Cameron calls on Corbyn to resign "for the sake of the country"!!!!

Balls of steel. Great big rusty balls of steel. Except when it matters. Twat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:17 PM

20. Cameron is getting to remind me of Gilbert and Sullivan's song about the Duke of Plaza-Toro


In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind--
He found it less exciting.
But when away his regiment ran,
His place was at the fore, O--

That celebrated,
Cultivated,
Underrated
Nobleman,

The Duke of Plaza-Toro! ....


When told that they would all be shot
Unless they left the service,
That hero hesitated not,
So marvellous his nerve is.
He sent his resignation in,
The first of all his corps, O!

That very knowing,
Overflowing,
Easy-going
Paladin,

The Duke of Plaza-Toro!


To men of grosser clay, ha, ha!
He always showed the way, ha, ha!
That very knowing,
Overflowing,
Easy-going

Paladin,

The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:29 AM

30. Come to think of it, that might apply even more to Boris!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:54 PM

23. So the latest scuttlebutt is that the chosen stalking horse against Corbyn

will be ... *roll on drums* ... Angela Eagle.

Voted FOR the Iraq war, AGAINST the Chilcot Inquiry I could go on, but somebody's already done it for me:

- According to the They Work For You website she has “generally voted for a stricter asylum system”.
- According to the They Work For You website in January and March 2004 she “voted in favour of university tuition fees increasing from £1125 per year to up to £3000 per year”.
- She supported the introduction of ID cards.
- In 2006 she supported the Blair government’s plan to detain terrorism suspects for up to 90 days without charge.
- In March 2013 she abstained on the vote about the coalition government’s workfare programme, the scheme in which people on Jobseekers Allowance are forced to carry out unpaid work in order to keep receiving their benefits.
- In July 2015 she abstained on the vote for the Welfare Bill, which proposed to cut tax credits, reduce the benefit cap to £20,000 (£23,000 in London) and called for £12bn more cuts. According to the government’s own figures, over 300,000 poor children will be pushed further into poverty, with 40,000 more children sinking below the poverty line, as a result of the benefit cap. Child Poverty - Action Group noted “the majority of households affected by the benefit cap are lone-parent households and the main victims are children”.
- She supports the expansion of Heathrow Airport.
- In March 2003 she voted for the invasion of Iraq, which led to the deaths of approximately 500,000 people, according to the latest survey.
- According to the They Work For You website she has “consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war”.
- She supports the retention of Trident nuclear weapons.
- In September 2014 she voted in favour of air strikes on Islamic State in Iraq.
- In December 2015 she voted in favour of air strikes on Islamic State in Syria.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ian-sinclair/who-is-angela-eagle


Ironically, the BBC describes her as "centre-left"!

I imagine with such a stalwart record of being on the right side of history ... well, she'll soon be history. Once she's served her purpose and let the more seriously ambitious apparatchiks get their ducks in a row and take their orders from Alistair Campbell or whoeverthehell my imagination can cook up who'd have the stellar lack of judgement to cook up this exquisite mix of bad timing and utter, utter hubris.

On the other hand, she does come with a handy spare, so she'd be able to multi-task no bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:08 PM

24. We could say "The Eagles have landed".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 07:06 PM

35. For some odd reason, the day before Hilary Benn was sacked

was the day somebody felt that there was a pressing need to register this domain:

http://angela4leader.co.uk/

"This page has been reserved for future use". Heh.

It was registered by one Joe McRea, according to his LinkedIn entry (won't link because rules), "Award winning communications, engagement and listening strategist" and "Prime Minister's Adviser 10 Downing Street".

You don't have to guess too hard which Prime Minister:

... worked as a special adviser in the Department of Health and in Downing Street during the early years of Tony Blair’s premiership.

Asked why he had registered it while she was still a member of Mr Corbyn's shadow Cabinet, Mr McCrea said: “No comment.”

(quote from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-eagle-delayed-labour-leadership-bid-because-jeremy-corbyn-could-be-on-the-verge-of-resigning-a7111906.html )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 07:18 PM

36. Funny thing, that. n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #35)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:02 AM

37. Good catch! (n/t)

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread