Labour Infighting Thread #423,555

[Borg Refinery]

..just 12 more pages of (two way) bitter, sideways and snide swiping wars of attrition to go, I know technically it does cover 'labour infighting' but I didn't expect it to devolve into 'cats fighting in a bag'-ing so quickly 

[Borg Refinery]

y only addition was, despite the intent of the bill, it could be misused to dismiss charges against soldier's that commit crimes abroad

Abroad? I'm sure we don't mean a bit of fisticuffs in some skank bar in Dhekelia, so in reality we mean in conflict. There is an old expression about looking over the hill, but in reality Dynamis, what is a "crime" in war? Who decides? Historically, these things were always dealt with under military law, but in todays increasingly liberal world, there is a growing trend to try and bring these matters into the civilian realm. Since conflict is so far outside most peoples understanding, for the typical jury member, its like trying to describe the surface of the moon. We've all seen pictures of it, but most of us have never been there

Look, for example thousands of deaths from the NI conflict that didn't involve accusations against the military will remain unsolved, Because unlike the military, official records don't exist in this world, and the people that carried them out and the "civilians" who aided and abetted them will never say a word. This is typical of dozens of insurgent type wars where "civilians" play military, then if caught fall back on "civil" protection, protection that the military doesn't get. The only cases that get pursued (at public expense), are the ones against the easiest targets - those where records exist and which the whole legal circus can feast itself on. Because its governments that send these poor c**ts to these places to do their dirty washing, and its governments who will then pay the legal profession to prosecute its own service personal

I'm not sure how many conflicts Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter and Olivia Blake have seen, but I don't think it will be many. That people like them are more interested in repatriating Jihadis than seeing them in court, and far less interested in the historical crimes of organisations like PIRA than they are in prosecuting current or former British soldiers speaks volumes about some parts of the Labour left

Again you make fair points, so we should use improved military tribunals instead - to make sure justice is served? I could agree with that.

[Thomas]

That is not actually true. I wouldn't even vote Labour in 2005 and 2010. In the past I have voted both Green and Lib Dem in opposition to New Labour.

This is a meangless wriggle.

You admitted many a time to me previously because of fptp , while you were an out and out labour party supporter , you voted tactically to keep the tories out of your constituency.

So stop lying now when the light is being shined on you  to make it seem you drifted away from labour to avoid blairite criticism.

I have zero interest in seeing a Blairite policy agenda,

im not saying you are , so stop twisting . What i am saying is despite your holier than thou annocements and grand political morals , you are prepared to see the blairites in charge in order to get labour into power.

...but you dont have the guts to stand under your labour flag and admit it ,despite you weasal words on here.

[srb7677]

I am true Labour through and through, even when the party wasn't. I am not a Blairite. Your politically motivated attempts to equate the two are risible to me.

You are labour through and through , which means depsite your protestations , you would see any faction of the party in power to get your beloved labour into government.

Now we have established your cult like following of the labour party what do you want to deabte?

Or shall we just continue to throw insults around?

You are fooling no one but yourself steve.

You are a one man walking advert for the "anyone but labour" vote.

That is not actually true. I wouldn't even vote Labour in 2005 and 2010. In the past I have voted both Green and Lib Dem in opposition to New Labour. I have zero interest in seeing a Blairite policy agenda, which is exactly why I am waiting to see developments on policy before deciding upon whether or not it is something I can support. But your calculated obtuseness seems to make you incapable of wanting to understand that. Hence your constant attempts at pidgeonholing me into something you can more readily understand and more easily attack.

[Thomas]

I am true Labour through and through, even when the party wasn't. I am not a Blairite. Your politically motivated attempts to equate the two are risible to me.

You are labour through and through , which means depsite your protestations , you would see any faction of the party in power to get your beloved labour into government.

Now we have established your cult like following of the labour party what do you want to deabte?

Or shall we just continue to throw insults around?

You are fooling no one but yourself steve.

You are a one man walking advert for the "anyone but labour" vote.

[Thomas]

Oh dear Thomas. I think you've upset leftylib. He's going to hit you with his handbag   

Thats if he can get his lard arse up out of the chair after a few seven skinners.

[srb7677]

You expect me to leave the party and consign myself and everything I believe in to electoral oblivion. That the Blairites seized such solid control for so long is precisely because we did that last time!!! Doing that again might serve your cause and that of the SNP, but it will not serve mine. That is why I am staying to fight.

Stick that up your kilt and goose yourself with it.

i dont expect you to leave or remain in the labour party ,its nothing to do with me.

What i do expect you to do is admit  , despite all your constant waffling , you are labour through and through , and you enable the blairites with your undying support of whoever is in charge of labour , so you own labours record good and bad.

So stick that in your hash bong and smoke it......man.

I am true Labour through and through, even when the party wasn't. I am not a Blairite. Your politically motivated attempts to equate the two are risible to me.

[DeppityDawg]

Oh dear Thomas. I think you've upset leftylib. He's going to hit you with his handbag   

[Thomas]

You expect me to leave the party and consign myself and everything I believe in to electoral oblivion. That the Blairites seized such solid control for so long is precisely because we did that last time!!! Doing that again might serve your cause and that of the SNP, but it will not serve mine. That is why I am staying to fight.

Stick that up your kilt and goose yourself with it.

i dont expect you to leave or remain in the labour party ,its nothing to do with me.

What i do expect you to do is admit  , despite all your constant waffling , you are labour through and through , and you enable the blairites with your undying support of whoever is in charge of labour , so you own labours record good and bad.

So stick that in your hash bong and smoke it......man.

[srb7677]

I disagree with the three MPs being sacked of course. Starmer's order to abstain on the vote is cynical spin being put above principle because principle here might be unpopular amongst some of the Tory voters he wants to woo. Clearly not a man to do the right thing if he thinks it might not be popular.

But what the hell do you expect me to do about it?

i expect you to be honest about starmer and his blairites instead of coming out with utter pish like the jury is still out on him..

There is plenty more of this to come over the coming years , and the only person who seriously thinks starmer is worth considering as party leader and given time to prove his "left wing credentials" seems to be you among the left of labour.

There is such a thing as a long game, and not flouncing off in the short term just to feel good.

The long game?

How much time do you need for the long game steve?

The blairites have been in power from the late nineties , with a short interregnum between corbyn being elected in 2015 , and january of this year. You had a quarter of a century to play the long game , and when your chance came in 2015 , you blew it , not once , but feckin twice.

Starmer was the main architect of your disasterous GE result last december , and all you do is make excuses for him time and again.

You make a rod for your own back on here time and again steve.

And to be honest I will not be told what to do by people who are not even party members and never have been.

im not telling you anything what you or your party should do , im picking you up over your ridiculous comments and twists and turns over blaming blairites for all things bad while supporting them to the hilt as colateral damage to get labour into power.

You wonder why the electorate despise labour liars?

You expect me to leave the party and consign myself and everything I believe in to electoral oblivion. That the Blairites seized such solid control for so long is precisely because we did that last time!!! Doing that again might serve your cause and that of the SNP, but it will not serve mine. That is why I am staying to fight.

Stick that up your kilt and goose yourself with it.

[Thomas]

I disagree with the three MPs being sacked of course. Starmer's order to abstain on the vote is cynical spin being put above principle because principle here might be unpopular amongst some of the Tory voters he wants to woo. Clearly not a man to do the right thing if he thinks it might not be popular.

But what the hell do you expect me to do about it?

i expect you to be honest about starmer and his blairites instead of coming out with utter pish like the jury is still out on him..

There is plenty more of this to come over the coming years , and the only person who seriously thinks starmer is worth considering as party leader and given time to prove his "left wing credentials" seems to be you among the left of labour.

There is such a thing as a long game, and not flouncing off in the short term just to feel good.

The long game?

How much time do you need for the long game steve?

The blairites have been in power from the late nineties , with a short interregnum between corbyn being elected in 2015 , and january of this year. You had a quarter of a century to play the long game , and when your chance came in 2015 , you blew it , not once , but feckin twice.

Starmer was the main architect of your disasterous GE result last december , and all you do is make excuses for him time and again.

You make a rod for your own back on here time and again steve.

And to be honest I will not be told what to do by people who are not even party members and never have been.

im not telling you anything what you or your party should do , im picking you up over your ridiculous comments and twists and turns over blaming blairites for all things bad while supporting them to the hilt as colateral damage to get labour into power.

You wonder why the electorate despise labour liars?

[srb7677]

No one wants members of the military dragged through the courts at the drop of a hat. But neither can it be right that illegal killings or other crimes committed in uniform be given a free rein. It is about where the balance should lie, and any presumption against prosecution is in my view unbalanced and risks letting rogue individuals get away with war crimes. There should be no presumption against or for prosecution, but merely a decision based upon the evidence.

And before anyone accuses me of not giving a shit about the members of the armed forces, my own nephew is in the Rifles and has been to Afghanistan. In private discussions with us he has always said that he would refuse to obey an illegal order.

so i take it you disagree with the parties blairite leadership and you think the three mps should not have been sacked for voting against this bill?

is the jury still out on starmer?

Or is this just another inconvenient blip that you want to ignore?

I disagree with the three MPs being sacked of course. Starmer's order to abstain on the vote is cynical spin being put above principle because principle here might be unpopular amongst some of the Tory voters he wants to woo. Clearly not a man to do the right thing if he thinks it might not be popular.

But what the hell do you expect me to do about it? If I and others like me leave we hand total control over to the Blairites and are no longer present to vote for what we support in the party and vote against what we oppose. The left leaving en masse in the Blair years was our biggest mistake. And it got us absolutely nowhere. I don't think we should repeat that mistake. I will stay and retain my internal party votes. I will only argue for what I believe in, and will continue to argue against what I don't believe in. And in elections I will only campaign for those individuals whose beliefs I support, otherwise I'll do nothing. And if any candidate in my ward or constituency is an unreconstructed Blairite, not only will I do nothing but in the secrecy of the ballot box I will vote for someone else instead.

I could not openly state the latter (I am anonymous here) because I could be expelled, but retaining the ability to fight from within - which under FPTP is our only real chance of winning any battles - matters. We must not vouchsafe total control to the Blairites again. And we need to be around if and when Starmer is seen to have failed. If we leave they will never repeat their mistake of letting us back in.

The Blairites themselves - at least most of them - never left but stayed to fight, without which they'd never have gotten Starmer. We on the left must do the same or we play into their hands.

There is such a thing as a long game, and not flouncing off in the short term just to feel good.

And to be honest I will not be told what to do by people who are not even party members and never have been. I will make my own decisions for my own reasons and in my own good time, thank you very much. Your eagerness to have me throw my toys out of the pram and flounce off is paradoxically helping to make me even more determined to stay.

[Sheepy]

No one wants members of the military dragged through the courts at the drop of a hat. But neither can it be right that illegal killings or other crimes committed in uniform be given a free rein. It is about where the balance should lie, and any presumption against prosecution is in my view unbalanced and risks letting rogue individuals get away with war crimes. There should be no presumption against or for prosecution, but merely a decision based upon the evidence.

And before anyone accuses me of not giving a shit about the members of the armed forces, my own nephew is in the Rifles and has been to Afghanistan. In private discussions with us he has always said that he would refuse to obey an illegal order.

so i take it you disagree with the parties blairite leadership and you think the three mps should not have been sacked for voting against this bill?

is the jury still out on starmer?

Or is this just another inconvenient blip that you want to ignore?

Well they do love opening up a can of worms Rob Roy, not often the correct can though, they must be badly labelled.

[Thomas]

No one wants members of the military dragged through the courts at the drop of a hat. But neither can it be right that illegal killings or other crimes committed in uniform be given a free rein. It is about where the balance should lie, and any presumption against prosecution is in my view unbalanced and risks letting rogue individuals get away with war crimes. There should be no presumption against or for prosecution, but merely a decision based upon the evidence.

And before anyone accuses me of not giving a shit about the members of the armed forces, my own nephew is in the Rifles and has been to Afghanistan. In private discussions with us he has always said that he would refuse to obey an illegal order.

so i take it you disagree with the parties blairite leadership and you think the three mps should not have been sacked for voting against this bill?

is the jury still out on starmer?

Or is this just another inconvenient blip that you want to ignore?

[Sheepy]

No one wants members of the military dragged through the courts at the drop of a hat. But neither can it be right that illegal killings or other crimes committed in uniform be given a free rein. It is about where the balance should lie, and any presumption against prosecution is in my view unbalanced and risks letting rogue individuals get away with war crimes. There should be no presumption against or for prosecution, but merely a decision based upon the evidence.

And before anyone accuses me of not giving a shit about the members of the armed forces, my own nephew is in the Rifles and has been to Afghanistan. In private discussions with us he has always said that he would refuse to obey an illegal order.

Is Tony Blair taking notes?