Page 29 of 98
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:34 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
It looks like a 'third party' has been subject to a denial of service attack. No idea who or why.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:39 pm
by Samanfur
Watchman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:31 pmMe too
And me.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:39 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Some reports that it's a ransomware attack on The Campaign Company.
Me neither...
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:35 pm
by Crabcakes
Me too. Which is particularly odd given I’m not a member of the Labour Party and haven’t been for 3 or so years. I am in Scientists for Labour though.
That said, I recently started getting emails from the local party as well so who knows?
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 pm
by mattomac
Ive not had anything… which sounds about right
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:29 pm
by davidjay
Jesus H, the number of supposed politically aware people who've never heard of pairing...
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:01 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:30 pm
by Boiler
More ammo for the Tories.
If it's a suspended sentence, is she subject to recall?
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:01 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
I think so.
Owen Paterson belatedly fucked off himself, probably saving the seat for the Tories. Doubtless Webbe won't.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:21 pm
by Samanfur
The BBC's article on the subject says that she is.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:12 pm
by Watchman
davidjay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:29 pm
Jesus H, the number of supposed politically aware people who've never heard of pairing...
Because despite all their expressing their knowledge on the comments page, all they have is what Murdoch and Rothmere have told them
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:27 pm
by davidjay
Watchman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:12 pm
davidjay wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:29 pm
Jesus H, the number of supposed politically aware people who've never heard of pairing...
Because despite all their expressing their knowledge on the comments page, all they have is what Murdoch and Rothmere have told them
It's not that side I despair of.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2021 9:52 am
by Youngian
Red Rutland. Ron Nasty would be delighted.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:19 pm
by mattomac
Thing is abstention isn’t the issue, the issue was the government put forward an amendment with a three line whip that let their sleazy corrupt mate off the hook.
As I said in the Starmer writes for the Sun and the amendments at conference, these things have so little importance when the opposition government is trying to turn its rule into a tryany.
It’s only a surprise that some of them had a backbone which hadn’t previously shown up.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 10:33 pm
by mattomac
Outlier but the polls are moving in a positive direction, kind of not surprising as much as the government has been wallowing in the shit all week, Labour have been on it continuously.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:41 am
by Bones McCoy
mattomac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:19 pm
Thing is abstention isn’t the issue, the issue was the government put forward an amendment with a three line whip that let their sleazy corrupt mate off the hook.
As I said in the Starmer writes for the Sun and the amendments at conference, these things have so little importance when the opposition government is trying to turn its rule into a tryany.
It’s only a surprise that some of them had a backbone which hadn’t previously shown up.
There'll be an element of the red wallies, and some other narrow majority types getting itchy about the polls.
Put yourself in their shoes.
* Fairly unexpected win.
* Lack the established westminster network to cash in like Cox or Patterson.
* Concerned about losing their seats at the next election.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:52 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
If only there were a big political mistake happening right now that Corbyn hadn't opposed till he sought Labour leadership. I'm not all that convinced by his economic outlook over that time. Nor his views on European defence.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:56 am
by Crabcakes
I bet there's also a ton of examples of political success stories that Corbyn opposed, because that's his default position depending on who proposes the policy rather than what the policy is. And on top of that, there'll be stuff like the Northern Ireland peace process that he needlessly complicated by interfering when not wanted because of his own sense of self importance.
I hate the fact he's built up as some sort of wise sage, when in reality he throws his lot in with obvious good causes that swathes of people could claim credit to have also supported. Often with more energy and sense than he applies.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:06 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
He was talking about reopening coal mines- bizarrely only deep ones, not open cast- before he had to put big boy trousers on as Labour leader.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:18 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:06 pm
he had to put big boy trousers on as Labour leader.
I must have missed that - when did it happen?