• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About eFestivals

  • Rank
    the value of your god may go down as well as up
  • Birthday 02/01/1998

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    in a field

Recent Profile Visitors

114,104 profile views
  1. Labour aren't electable under Corbyn, and Corbyn as leader for the next election risks them being never electable again. It's clear as day. Labour has worked it out, which is precisely why they're taking corrective action. Corrective action is a better thing than no action and obscurity. Just because those affected - plus non-Labour-voting morons on the outside - think Labour have it wrong doesn't mean that they have. Chucking Militant out in the 80s wasn't the wrong choice for their electability, it was the right choice - and this time is no different. Militant didn't want to follow the rule book (which was arrived at after going thru all the same things in the past [and several times], don't forget) just as plenty of the new members don't. Just because it's not going to deliver everything-electable today doesn't mean they've got it wrong, it's merely your I-want-it-all-and-I-want-it now side shining thru. only if "leftists" vote for the raving right of UKIP or the not-as-raving-right of the tories. And if that happens, guess what? It means that the noisy self-proclaimed Corbyn "leftists" never were. And we're back to my take/speculation that those people are the ones who voted LibDem in 2010 and tory in 2015.
  2. Becaause Scottish Greens are both soooo Green and socialist? PMSL. It's merely your moral get-out for voting tory with your other vote, the only one that actually counted for anything.
  3. they (currently, and firstly) propose higher taxes for the wealthy because the current tax balance is out of kilter. That's a slightly different thing to a whole-view of how and where tax should be levied. The reason why it HAS to be tax everyone by a greater extent in order to have the resources to deliver to a greater extent is because as both a moral and practical stand it's everyone's duty to contribute towards wider society. If you start giving some a free-pass everyone wants it - which is pretty much the situation Thatcher has brought about and why taxes today are considered such a bad thing. Not even to deliver the poorest a bigger share of society which you constantly say is desperately needed (even before cuts started). Yeah, I know, you said it before. UK Labour accept there's little appetite for higher taxes right now (while people like you say there is in Scotland, and then vote against them), so as a first step they're aiming only to try and restore what's been cut away in the last 5-10 years. That's the result of considering what's electable and possible, instead of navel gazing and demanding the impossible (hello Jezza and co), or (hello you) saying one thing and doing another. You've been cheering on a campaign and calling it more-left, when your stance and what you cheer has never been that anyway. You're muddled because the dogma you've baaa'ought into requires it, because sense destroys it.
  4. and if it doesn't get elected to achieve it's goal, it's achieved nothing at all. To an extent, yes. A large chunk of those new members have no interest in achieving the goal of a fairer society, they say they want a 100% perfect society or they'll accept nothing that's fairer at all. It's an all or nothing stance. Given that there's not a hope in hell of achieving it all - at least, not in one hit - it's a deliberately-losing strategy. the fact that they aren't interested in "organise[ing] and maintain[ing] in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party". Their interest is in victory for their own view and nothing less. old clause 4 or current one? And whichever it is, why don't you actually REALLY support it? You know, by voting for it? You go with a personal critique, and in doing so abandon the mass of humanity.
  5. No shit sherlock. And Labour as a party intend to be something that voters - enough voters - feels stands for them. If you like, the voters labour has newly attracted are the wrong type of voters. That's the fault of those voters, not labour - as that's made clear by their non-acceptance of the party rule book.
  6. No one expected Corbyn to win, including Corbyn. Yes, it's a fuck up that he did win and those who gave him sympathy nominations hold their guilt for that - but they still gave Jezza that nomination with the best of intentions towards the party, to ensure it was the broad church the party has always been. But the problem (incompetence aside) isn't even that Jezza won, it's that he's won with the support of people who reject the broad church, and now Jezza rejects it too in order to hold on to his personal support. Labour might have made themselves look incompetent, but that's been caused by the 'wrong' members and the 'wrong' leader and not by the party's rules. ('wrong' because they reject the party's rules).
  7. the party rules are the party rules. The party is being pragmatic towards those rules. The membership is secondary within those rules. It's 100% clear if you bothered to read the rule book rather than self-invent it.
  8. It's not circular logic. It's your lack of logic. Logic would have to accept the reason for Labour's existence BEFORE you considered how it exists today.
  9. I see Jezza has finally managed some policy detail. Which is: 200,000 houses a year to be built with public (borrowed) funds, with that borrowing being £15Bn per year. So far so good. But wait, has anyone done the maths...? £15Bn divided by 200,000 equals £75k per house. Nice one Jezza. Meanwhile, the building is an issue too. There's no ear-marked/owned/planning-permissioned land for these houses, meaning at least a few years to get it off the ground, and then there's not the construction workers to build them - unless Mr Brexit-means-Brexit is planning on inviting more Poles? And what about "everyone will be paid more in Jezza-land"? The price of those houses has just gone up a sizeable notch. Popularism. Simple solutions to complex problems - but not even a good lie when he's thinking he can build decent housing stock stuffed full of the latest energy-saving stuff for £75k. It's so fucking sad.
  10. Sadly, and like so many Corbynistas, feral believes she has planted her flag in the higher moral ground. All tories are evil, so evil she doesn't believe they can be attracted by any party she's decided is on her righteous side. She's so up herself she's not even referencing what is clear to any thinking person.
  11. And yet, funnily enough, you seem to claim perfect comprehension of Corbyn's side. You constantly condemn any action you take to mean a Corbyn slight, whilst giving Corbyn the benefit of the doubt over everything. What's you view on traingate today? Is it still a media stitch up of honest Jezza, as it was with you a few days ago? Despite Jezza himself admitting to his lie in several different ways (where none of his admissions fit for what he claimed from the floor of the train)?
  12. yes you do. The socialist principle Labour work by is tax everyone and redistribute what is collected to where it's needed. "From each according to his ability to each according to their needs", to use a famous phrase. You object to the poor being taxed to better benefit the poor. You stated it quite explicitly - and you even objected to it when they'd be paying less in tax and not more. (I'm not trying to claim Labour have a perfect implementation of Marx's words, btw. Just that that's the principle they work by. There's a reason why Labour wasn't the party who wanted to take the poorest out of the tax regime, it is the tories and libdems who operate the policy you support).
  13. would the Party you vote for welcome th3e new blood of British unionists? Your problem is that you're self-inventing the reasons why Labour exists, and so are also self-inventing the reasons for the party's response. Read the feckin' rule book. You don't have to read beyond rule one.
  14. Or more correctly, they appear to be trying to fulfil the stated purpose in the rule book of the party . The purpose of Labour is not to be a mass membership party, but to be an elected party. It's as clear as can be in the rule book, as the over-riding rule above everything else. If part of the membership is causing them to fail towards their purpose, then that part of the membership is the issue that needs tackling. If the SNP were removing new members who didn't share the party's objective of indy it wouldn't be a witch-hunt it would be respect for the party's rules. What's going on within Labour is no different. What is different is your lack of respect for Labour's purpose.
  15. Nope. GERS says nor suggests anything like you claim. The "deficit-gap" part of Scotland's problem is not being cut, only the UK's part of that deficit is. Why not do the sum I suggested? Making it up from nothing at all is not the intelligent angle. PMSL Spending is being cut, which is why the deficit is falling. FFS. .... Scottish spending grew by a lesser proportional amount than the economic growth and inflation (hence the deficit closing), and Scotland's economic growth was lesser than rUK's. Scotland fell yet further behind the UK average performance, tho as i've noted above that's very decent anyway given the collapse of the oil sector which is a large part of Scotland's economy.