No. You're not "missing something".

But that is not what you asserted earlier.

If what you have now posted is what you meant, then you should have posted that earlier. Not what you did post. Which was factually incorrect.

Let's look – again, for the terminally dumb – at what you actually posted:



"It's members" [sic]? "it's members (such as they are) are even less bothered"?

This describes a whole. (Albeit incorrectly, of course: there is no apostrophe in the possessive) The members of the whole of the labour movement.

This is factually incorrect.

Because the fact is that some members are bothered and some members are trying to do something.

Learn to use English accurately before you spout inaccuracies and then claim you know better than someone who has done work on the issues.

Ignoring the superfluous apostrophe - I am not trying to write literature in these rapid posts - it still seems you are agreeing with me. You are resorting to saying that some members are trying to do something, something I never doubted. But the vagueness of the overall response - "some", "trying" to do "something" says it all - there is no co-ordinated, mass opposition. There are few people messing about without any real self-belief that they will achieve anything significant. What there is not is a mass, non-fragmented campaign that believes it will crush government policy.

I'm not "resorting" to saying anything.

I'm pointing out that you posted factually incorrect drivel – and have then tried desperately to play at shifting the goalposts to pretend that you had a clue what you were on about.

Your attempts to pretend otherwise are predictably pathetic.

Your amendment of what I said says it all It sums up the socialist mentality - most people, those that we believe want us to represent them, beacuse we know best, are stupid and easily lead. Incapable of making up their minds. However, they are good for giving us money (preferably without option if we can get away with it) to fund our lifestyles and fantasies as union leaders, politicians, etc.

The thing is though, organised socialism is in crisis because people ainn't stupid - they realise they have been taken for a ride by the self-serving.

Mintball, interesting quote from The Jewish Labour Movement's website:

“The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing”
Harold Wilson, 5th September 1964


What is the current Labour Party's ethos - or is the Party "nothing"

Throughout this thread you seem to conflate the labour movement and The Labour Party. Since the introduction of Nooooo Labour, the only connection has been the latter are happy to take money from the former. Ideologically they are poles apart

And our Wail-quoting friend calls others "stupid" ...

Not at all, for the Labour Movement to be meaningful it needs representation via the Labour Party. I think you have realised my point - there is no longer a meaningful Labour Movement. So, as I said, there is no effective opposition to the government's proposals in many areas. For small interest groups to moan is not enough. Never was in the past, never will be in the future. So, unless the Labour Movement can recreate itself in a guise that appeals to the masses, it serves no purpose.

Do you seriously believe that?

If it hadn't been for the labour movement (note lack of capitals), organising and protesting against a number of pieces of legislation that thsi dog's breakfast of a government has attempted to bring to the statute book, there would have been few if any amendments and almost everything would've been passed on the nod.

The NHS 'reforms' would have been passed ages ago, just for starters.