Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Dobba said:
It's I Partridge, without the comedy and with more support for Cameron's 'Big Society'.
Click to expand...
Now that's exciting. The second funniest thing about Cameron was that every six months he'd suddenly bring that up again and every single time no one would even pretend to know what he was on about.
 
Dobba said:
It's I Partridge, without the comedy and with more support for Cameron's 'Big Society'.
Click to expand...

It's not very far from Cameron at all. In fact it's not very far from Boris really.

Occupy the same rhetoric with a bafflement that the other side are doing it wrong seems to be the tactic.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
The left wanted mandatory reselection, which would allow local members of all political stripes more say in who they spend their time campaigning for rather than mates/ideological bedfellows of the leadership being foisted on CLPs (especially in safe seats), denying local activists the chance to represent their own constituencies. The reason that was seen as a bad thing by the right is because they (justifiably) have no faith in their ability to attract like-minded people to join the party or to win over existing members. In practice it probably would lead to a more left wing PLP, but it would also lead to one much more in touch with local communities instead of one dominated by well-connected career politicians who barely know the place they're mean to represent. During the Corbyn years my MP resigned and the left NEC pulled some skulduggery to keep a local candidate off the shortlist and set up their preferred candidate for the win. That shit is annoying and counterproductive regardless of who is doing it.

A lot of your post is reflective of how different the bar is for left and right. Corbyn and the left were demonised as Stalinist for trying to make the party more accountable to the activist base which it relies on to win elections, Starmer and the right get a free pass for actively purging left wing members and trying to rig internal elections. After a leadership election where Labour staffers allied to the right engaged in an active campaign to block left wing Labour members from voting, Corbyn came in and made legitimate attempts to reach out to the party and include a range of views in his Shadow Cabinet. After a leadership election where the left backed Starmer in huge numbers, he responds by going back on every assurance he gave them and sacking one of the two left wing MPs in the Shadow Cabinet from the Education brief for the crime of being too aligned with the interests of teachers. The same Labour members who voted Corbyn in voted in Watson, a clear sign that they were willing to work with centrists, Watson immediately turned round and started slagging them off in the media and calling for them to be kicked out of the party. The only crime the left had committed at that point was daring not to vote for a group of people who had no vision and a massive sense of entitlement.

I mention the manifesto because Starmer's pitch as party leader was to build on the 2017 manifesto, it was one of his 10 pledges that convinced many on the left to put their faith in him. Again, he's repaid that faith by tearing each and every pledge up, marginalising the left of the PLP and pressing the purge button on left wing members. I'm not gonna back anything Lavery or McCluskey have said as more often than not I disagree with both, but the average left wing Labour Party member has every reason to distrust and dislike the centre/right of the party - they have consistently demonstrated from day one that they don't play fair and that they never had any intention of trying to win an election whilst Corbyn was in charge. On the other hand, the left, barring a vocal minority, has repeatedly attempted to engage in good faith with the rest of the party and every time it's been thrown back in their face. The right can lie, cheat and steal and undermine the party's electoral prospects with impunity whilst the left is expected to stay quiet, have no input and go out to campaign and vote for people who want them out of the party.

That's why it's annoying when people come out with things like 'both sides needs to compromise'. The left has compromised, a lot of us voted for Watson in 2015 and Starmer in 2020 precisely because we were willing to compromise. Our mistake was being daft enough to think the the right was capable of doing the same.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your detailed post, certainly helps me understand the views.

I can understand why mandatory reselection was wanted but it also led to alot of nastiness against current Members and anyone who spoke out against the leadership. The majority of seats targeted were also anyone who was seen against or spoke out against the Leadership. In respect of candidates being parachuted in (something I hate!), Claudia Webbe was parachuted in from London by the Labour leadership under Corbyn in Leicester East and she had no connection to the local area at all. There was lots of criticisim at the time and I fail to see how she would represent local people's views.

No one should get any free pass for purging Members. Having been unclear on this issue, are these Members who have left or been expelled and is there evidence about why they are expelled? The RLB sacking was nothing to do with teachers but the sharing of an anti Semitism conspiracy theory. Watson was also subject to alot of nastiness. It was both sides is my point.

The argument can be made that Corbyn and the left had nearly 5 years to get themselves in power with 2 general elections. While making progress on one but still losing, they got battered in the second. The policies they put forward were rejected by the electorate. Yet the blame for losing has been anyone but the leadership - other members, media etc. What I saw was a poor campaign with a poor front bench team who did not appeal to the electorate. Yes Brexit was an issue but to lose like they did and hand Boris a 80 seat majority was unacceptable. The left has been the majority for the time under Corbyn. You can argue about lieing, cheating and stealing but Corbyn couldn't get a handle on the anti-semitism issue. Anyone reporting it was slagged off and abused in the media.

Your argument comes from one side however I would argue there has been compromises on both sides. The sad thing is now this battle continues and the Tories are lapping it up.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
That's rather vague. Do you have a specific example?
Click to expand...

He called members of the PLP 'jumped-up thugs and vicious, horrible people' for going against anyone supporting the party. The same hypocrisy he is accused of.

Before Batley and Spen, he slagged off Labour and said the praised Conservative canniness for taking advantage.

That's a couple of example. My point continues there is sniping from both sides, no one side is innocent.
 
TheGame said:
I assume this post was meant against me, if so, perhaps you should have waited before I responded to the other post before making jibes.
Click to expand...
You're other post was just the same old arguments that have been had for years now. The vague talking of nastiness, pearl clutching over name calling, not having a clue about why members got booted out, Labour lost the election to due a bad campaign(It was a shite campaign but there are deep rooted economic reasons why labour lost) and this fantasy of a united labour party(Parties are never united, one side dominates control and the other side has no power).

Maybe it helps people but honestly seems like so many are stuck in 2017 - 19, while in 2021 the world is burning.
 
Sweet Square said:
You're other post was just the same old arguments that have been had for years now. The vague talking of nastiness, pearl clutching over name calling, not having a clue about why members got booted out, Labour lost the election to due a bad campaign(It was a shite campaign but there are deep rooted economic reasons why labour lost) and this fantasy of a united labour party(Parties are never united, one side dominates control and the other side has no power).

Maybe it helps people but honestly seems like so many are stuck in 2017 - 19, while in 2021 the world is burning.
Click to expand...

Labour lost ultimately as it didn’t get enough votes so it didn’t appeal enough to the electorate as it didn’t get the message across or didn’t know how to do. The electorate are idiots because they voted for Brexit slogans. Yes the world is burning and it infuriates me more than most who we have in charge of the country at the moment.
 
TheGame said:
No one should get any free pass for purging Members. Having been unclear on this issue, are these Members who have left or been expelled and is there evidence about why they are expelled? The RLB sacking was nothing to do with teachers but the sharing of an anti Semitism conspiracy theory. Watson was also subject to alot of nastiness. It was both sides is my point.

The argument can be made that Corbyn and the left had nearly 5 years to get themselves in power with 2 general elections. While making progress on one but still losing, they got battered in the second. The policies they put forward were rejected by the electorate. Yet the blame for losing has been anyone but the leadership - other members, media etc. What I saw was a poor campaign with a poor front bench team who did not appeal to the electorate. Yes Brexit was an issue but to lose like they did and hand Boris a 80 seat majority was unacceptable. The left has been the majority for the time under Corbyn. You can argue about lieing, cheating and stealing but Corbyn couldn't get a handle on the anti-semitism issue. Anyone reporting it was slagged off and abused in the media.
Click to expand...

Labour are systematically trying to purge left wing members from the party. They are literally trawling social media profiles and trying to find spurious reasons they can suspend or investigate socialist members. If you are loyal to Starmer though or on the right of the party, you get a free pass. The Chair of Young Labour got sent a notice of investigation in the last couple of weeks for tweeting something negative about transphobes. It was only when she got legal on the party that they sent an apology and said it was an admin error. Most members don't have the ability to argue their case with lawyers.

RLB was sacked because she was left wing and too supportive of the teaching unions. She did not 'share an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory'. The article she shared claimed that the IDF train U.S. police officers on restraint measures (they do) and that this is where the the police learnt the method that led to George Floyd's sad death. Now the last part of that is possible but also could be completely false. Could you explain why being wrong about that is racist though? Is making an untrue claim which you believe to be true, about the IDF, racist? Of course it isn't. Unless you are are some how conflating Jewish people with the IDF because you want to attack a socialist on spurious allegations. Funnily enough, right leaning MP Barry Sheerman tweeted an actual anti-Semitic conspiracy and received no disciplinary action whatsoever. Zero tolerance, but only for 'lefties'.

The reality is that 2019 was basically an unwinnable election for Labour. The fact that the vast majority of constituencies in the country voted to leave the EU meant it was always a losing battle. It wasn't a case of voters suddenly deciding between 2017 and 2019 that they hate Labour policies. They just wanted 'Get Brexit Done' and nothing would have changed that.
 
TheGame said:
Thank you for your detailed post, certainly helps me understand the views.

I can understand why mandatory reselection was wanted but it also led to alot of nastiness against current Members and anyone who spoke out against the leadership. The majority of seats targeted were also anyone who was seen against or spoke out against the Leadership. In respect of candidates being parachuted in (something I hate!), Claudia Webbe was parachuted in from London by the Labour leadership under Corbyn in Leicester East and she had no connection to the local area at all. There was lots of criticisim at the time and I fail to see how she would represent local people's views.

No one should get any free pass for purging Members. Having been unclear on this issue, are these Members who have left or been expelled and is there evidence about why they are expelled? The RLB sacking was nothing to do with teachers but the sharing of an anti Semitism conspiracy theory. Watson was also subject to alot of nastiness. It was both sides is my point.

The argument can be made that Corbyn and the left had nearly 5 years to get themselves in power with 2 general elections. While making progress on one but still losing, they got battered in the second. The policies they put forward were rejected by the electorate. Yet the blame for losing has been anyone but the leadership - other members, media etc. What I saw was a poor campaign with a poor front bench team who did not appeal to the electorate. Yes Brexit was an issue but to lose like they did and hand Boris a 80 seat majority was unacceptable. The left has been the majority for the time under Corbyn. You can argue about lieing, cheating and stealing but Corbyn couldn't get a handle on the anti-semitism issue. Anyone reporting it was slagged off and abused in the media.

Your argument comes from one side however I would argue there has been compromises on both sides. The sad thing is now this battle continues and the Tories are lapping it up.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I say, the parachuting in of candidates by the leadership is annoying regardless who is doing it. Our previous MP was parachuted in as as an ideological ally of Blair, our current MP was parachuted in as an ideological ally of Corbyn. I've never had the opportunity to vote for a Labour candidate who actually lived here before they were elected. Mandatory reselection would have changed that as CLPs would have had the power to replace candidates who they don't feel represent them.

It also would have applied equally to everyone. Under mandatory reselection Corbyn could have been deselected if that's what members of his CLP wanted. The right feared it because, as I said in my previous post, they knew full well that they aren't good at inspiring people to join the party and they aren't good at winning hearts and minds. The only way the right can maintain control of the party is by making the party as undemocratic as possible (e.g - Blair parachuting dozens of ideological allies into safe seats/neutering the party conference or Starmer now trying to change the rules so the members have less say in who leads the party) or by lying through their teeth to get elected (e.g - Watson, Starmer).

You raise Watson as someone subjected to nastiness by the left. The left certainly wasn't being nasty to Watson when they elected him as Deputy Leader in 2015. The left's dislike of Watson stems from when, immediately after they elected him, he called them thugs and agitated for them to be booted from the party. Again, this is the problem with both sides-ing the issue. The right attacks, undermines and smears the left and no-one gives a shit whilst the left is blamed for standing up for itself and held collectively responsible for the actions of an unpleasant minority. This is also why your take on the current situation is so skewed, to your mind complaining on Twitter about a guy getting elected on a unity ticket and embarking on a massive factional assault is just as bad as being the guy who got elected on a unity ticket and embarked on a massive factional assault. It's just rank double standards. When a left wing leader who actively tries to foster party unity comes in, the right can spend 5 years actively working to trash the party's electoral chances with impunity, but when a centrist leader comes in and actively attacks the left, the left are expected to stay quiet, keep paying their membership dues and come out to volunteer at election time.

I'm not going to get into a few of your other points as I've written long posts about my views on the outcomes of the 2017 and 2019 elections before (which incidentally contain a lot of critique of the Corbyn leadership) but on the purges/targeting of the left, @ZupZup has given a recent high-profile example. Another recent one would be Kate Osbourne, a socialist Labour MP who recently received a letter informing her she was under investigation which was later rescinded as there were no grounds to investigate her. There are thousands of these cases spanning years and in very few cases do the victims have the ability to challenge them in the way higher profile people can, one guy during the 2015 leadership election was barred from voting for an abusive tweet which turned out to read "I fecking love the Foo Fighters".
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Yeah like I say, the parachuting in of candidates by the leadership is annoying regardless who is doing it. Our previous MP was parachuted in as as an ideological ally of Blair, our current MP was parachuted in as an ideological ally of Corbyn. I've never had the opportunity to vote for a Labour candidate who actually lived here before they were elected. Mandatory reselection would have changed that as CLPs would have had the power to replace candidates who they don't feel represent them.

It also would have applied equally to everyone. Under mandatory reselection Corbyn could have been deselected if that's what members of his CLP wanted. The right feared it because, as I said in my previous post, they knew full well that they aren't good at inspiring people to join the party and they aren't good at winning hearts and minds. The only way the right can maintain control of the party is by making the party as undemocratic as possible (e.g - Blair parachuting dozens of ideological allies into safe seats/neutering the party conference or Starmer now trying to change the rules so the members have less say in who leads the party) or by lying through their teeth to get elected (e.g - Watson, Starmer).

You raise Watson as someone subjected to nastiness by the left. The left certainly wasn't being nasty to Watson when they elected him as Deputy Leader in 2015. The left's dislike of Watson stems from when, immediately after they elected him, he called them thugs and agitated for them to be booted from the party. Again, this is the problem with both sides-ing the issue. The right attacks, undermines and smears the left and no-one gives a shit whilst the left is blamed for standing up for itself and held collectively responsible for the actions of an unpleasant minority. This is also why your take on the current situation is so skewed, to your mind complaining on Twitter about a guy getting elected on a unity ticket and embarking on a massive factional assault is just as bad as being the guy who got elected on a unity ticket and embarked on a massive factional assault. It's just rank double standards. When a left wing leader who actively tries to foster party unity comes in, the right can spend 5 years actively working to trash the party's electoral chances with impunity, but when a centrist leader comes in and actively attacks the left, the left are expected to stay quiet, keep paying their membership dues and come out to volunteer at election time.

I'm not going to get into a few of your other points as I've written long posts about my views on the outcomes of the 2017 and 2019 elections before (which incidentally contain a lot of critique of the Corbyn leadership) but on the purges/targeting of the left, @ZupZup has given a recent high-profile example. Another recent one would be Kate Osbourne, a socialist Labour MP who recently received a letter informing her she was under investigation which was later rescinded as there were no grounds to investigate her. There are thousands of these cases spanning years and in very few cases do the victims have the ability to challenge them in the way higher profile people can, one guy during the 2015 leadership election was barred from voting for an abusive tweet which turned out to read "I fecking love the Foo Fighters".
Click to expand...

Thanks, always good to discuss. Let's hope the party sorts itself out.
 
TheGame said:
Labour lost ultimately as it didn’t get enough votes so it didn’t appeal enough to the electorate as it didn’t get the message across or didn’t know how to do. The electorate are idiots because they voted for Brexit slogans. Yes the world is burning and it infuriates me more than most who we have in charge of the country at the moment.
Click to expand...

You say idiots. And yes, voting for Brexit was a profoundly idiotic decision.

But I would call them gullible for believing the lies and not understanding the issues.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Yeah like I say, the parachuting in of candidates by the leadership is annoying regardless who is doing it. Our previous MP was parachuted in as as an ideological ally of Blair, our current MP was parachuted in as an ideological ally of Corbyn. I've never had the opportunity to vote for a Labour candidate who actually lived here before they were elected. Mandatory reselection would have changed that as CLPs would have had the power to replace candidates who they don't feel represent them.

It also would have applied equally to everyone. Under mandatory reselection Corbyn could have been deselected if that's what members of his CLP wanted. The right feared it because, as I said in my previous post, they knew full well that they aren't good at inspiring people to join the party and they aren't good at winning hearts and minds. The only way the right can maintain control of the party is by making the party as undemocratic as possible (e.g - Blair parachuting dozens of ideological allies into safe seats/neutering the party conference or Starmer now trying to change the rules so the members have less say in who leads the party) or by lying through their teeth to get elected (e.g - Watson, Starmer).

You raise Watson as someone subjected to nastiness by the left. The left certainly wasn't being nasty to Watson when they elected him as Deputy Leader in 2015. The left's dislike of Watson stems from when, immediately after they elected him, he called them thugs and agitated for them to be booted from the party. Again, this is the problem with both sides-ing the issue. The right attacks, undermines and smears the left and no-one gives a shit whilst the left is blamed for standing up for itself and held collectively responsible for the actions of an unpleasant minority. This is also why your take on the current situation is so skewed, to your mind complaining on Twitter about a guy getting elected on a unity ticket and embarking on a massive factional assault is just as bad as being the guy who got elected on a unity ticket and embarked on a massive factional assault. It's just rank double standards. When a left wing leader who actively tries to foster party unity comes in, the right can spend 5 years actively working to trash the party's electoral chances with impunity, but when a centrist leader comes in and actively attacks the left, the left are expected to stay quiet, keep paying their membership dues and come out to volunteer at election time.

I'm not going to get into a few of your other points as I've written long posts about my views on the outcomes of the 2017 and 2019 elections before (which incidentally contain a lot of critique of the Corbyn leadership) but on the purges/targeting of the left, @ZupZup has given a recent high-profile example. Another recent one would be Kate Osbourne, a socialist Labour MP who recently received a letter informing her she was under investigation which was later rescinded as there were no grounds to investigate her. There are thousands of these cases spanning years and in very few cases do the victims have the ability to challenge them in the way higher profile people can, one guy during the 2015 leadership election was barred from voting for an abusive tweet which turned out to read "I fecking love the Foo Fighters".
Click to expand...
Some home truths there, but I'll quibble with a couple of points:

When you say 'the left are expected to stay quiet, keep paying their membership dues and come out to volunteer at election time' I think you've misunderstood, centrists don't want the left to stay at all, they want the left out, and will accept any negative consequences.

With regards to reselection, what you say is technically correct, but makes no mention that the objective was clearly to replace centrist/right MPs with left ones, and it's a shade disingenuous to omit that.

I don't know how it's going to pan out, the left have huge activist support but they don't seem capable of organising themselves. Maybe the conference will tell us more, but I've a horrible feeling we will just drift on as we are. Starmer is coming across as a politician without conviction, and I don't see any sign of that changing.
 
711 said:
Some home truths there, but I'll quibble with a couple of points:

When you say 'the left are expected to stay quiet, keep paying their membership dues and come out to volunteer at election time' I think you've misunderstood, centrists don't want the left to stay at all, they want the left out, and will accept any negative consequences.

With regards to reselection, what you say is technically correct, but makes no mention that the objective was clearly to replace centrist/right MPs with left ones, and it's a shade disingenuous to omit that.

I don't know how it's going to pan out, the left have huge activist support but they don't seem capable of organising themselves. Maybe the conference will tell us more, but I've a horrible feeling we will just drift on as we are. Starmer is coming across as a politician without conviction, and I don't see any sign of that changing.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say, except that I would argue the left is very good at organising themselves, but not others e.g. organising the electorate.

For most of my life the UK electorate, broadly speaking, (and there are dislocations in various parts) have been slightly to the right, now thanks to the 'looney* left' its even further to the right. The only hope now, that with an 80 strong majority to bolster him, is that Boris will finally tip the balance against himself because his two aims of going for a determined climate change agenda and 'levelling up' cannot both succeed.

However Boris will either go for 'broke' and leave a 'legacy' of making great strides in terms of climate change policy, and thereafter get the 'hawks' in the Tory party itself to turf him out, or he will knuckle down and fufill the party ambition of smashing Labour forever in its red wall seats by making a success of 'leveling up'.... he cannot do both and will fall between two stools.

Labour at the moment with or without Starmer, does not have a dog in the race... maybe with some careful nurturing Angela Rayner may carry some hope for the future. Labour was always a working class party, it isn't anymore, Angela might lead (or pull it kicking and screaming) it back there?

(* I use the word 'looney' not against individuals of the left or indeed the majority of the policies they espouse, but against their seemingly collective and steadfast refusal to understand the UK electorate and to (repeatedly) keep shooting themselves in the foot.)
 
I finally read a good idea by Labour today. They are going to restrict foreign ownership of new build properties to 50%.

Personally I don't think it goes far enough. It should be 5%. Only foreigners who live in the UK should be able to buy residential property outside of that 5%. By living it means someone who is registered as a taxpayer in the UK or can evidence they spend more than 6 months a year here. We have a housing crisis and in many parts of the country it's because dirty money from abroad is being dumped in the UK property market.
 
Maticmaker said:
I agree with much of what you say, except that I would argue the left is very good at organising themselves, but not others e.g. organising the electorate.

For most of my life the UK electorate, broadly speaking, (and there are dislocations in various parts) have been slightly to the right, now thanks to the 'looney* left' its even further to the right. The only hope now, that with an 80 strong majority to bolster him, is that Boris will finally tip the balance against himself because his two aims of going for a determined climate change agenda and 'levelling up' cannot both succeed.

However Boris will either go for 'broke' and leave a 'legacy' of making great strides in terms of climate change policy, and thereafter get the 'hawks' in the Tory party itself to turf him out, or he will knuckle down and fufill the party ambition of smashing Labour forever in its red wall seats by making a success of 'leveling up'.... he cannot do both and will fall between two stools.

Labour at the moment with or without Starmer, does not have a dog in the race... maybe with some careful nurturing Angela Rayner may carry some hope for the future. Labour was always a working class party, it isn't anymore, Angela might lead (or pull it kicking and screaming) it back there?

(* I use the word 'looney' not against individuals of the left or indeed the majority of the policies they espouse, but against their seemingly collective and steadfast refusal to understand the UK electorate and to (repeatedly) keep shooting themselves in the foot.)
Click to expand...

I think you're mixing up right wing with authoritarianism.

The current government economically is spending money as if it were a left wing party with large scale infrastructure projects, propping up (often failing) businesses, subsidising wages, intervention in the market (energy caps - look how that's doing!), tax hikes meaning we have the highest taxes since WW2 etc.

By most metrics we have a left of centre authoritarian government.
 
finneh said:
I think you're mixing up right wing with authoritarianism.

The current government economically is spending money as if it were a left wing party with large scale infrastructure projects, propping up (often failing) businesses, subsidising wages, intervention in the market (energy caps - look how that's doing!), tax hikes meaning we have the highest taxes since WW2 etc.

By most metrics we have a left of centre authoritarian government.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't disagree, except to say authoritarian comes on the left and the right of politics, and currently its not political philosophy driving the Government, its sheer survival, for the country as whole. This is why Labour, Lib Dems, etc can't lay a glove on the Government politically, the public (at large) recognise we are entering the 'perfect storm' scenario and its not the time to change the hand on the tiller, or cause anymore 'rocking of the boat'.
If the Tories didn't have an 80 strong majority in Parliament, its odds on we would now be looking a Government of National Unity, but of course the Welsh and Scots Nats (in particular) don't want anything of the sort, so even if they manage somehow to get rid of Boris they would be facing an even more All UK Government clarion call.... which would drive them back to their respective hills!
 
Zlatattack said:
I finally read a good idea by Labour today. They are going to restrict foreign ownership of new build properties to 50%.

Personally I don't think it goes far enough. It should be 5%. Only foreigners who live in the UK should be able to buy residential property outside of that 5%. By living it means someone who is registered as a taxpayer in the UK or can evidence they spend more than 6 months a year here. We have a housing crisis and in many parts of the country it's because dirty money from abroad is being dumped in the UK property market.
Click to expand...
50% :lol:
 
finneh said:
I think you're mixing up right wing with authoritarianism.

The current government economically is spending money as if it were a left wing party with large scale infrastructure projects, propping up (often failing) businesses, subsidising wages, intervention in the market (energy caps - look how that's doing!), tax hikes meaning we have the highest taxes since WW2 etc.

By most metrics we have a left of centre authoritarian government.
Click to expand...
The current government is spending the money that could've been invested in long term projects that benefit the country. Instead they are siphoning the money to their friends and leaving the country in debt with no assets
 
can i just say, Ian austin is a c**t, and all the centrists and red torys retweeting his nonsense in the daily mail, are complete c**ts too. Why doesnt Starmer jump on them for undermining the Labour party?
 
Changes approved today

The package includes:
  • A rule that any candidate would need the backing of 20% of party MPs to get onto the leadership ballot - up from the current 10%
  • Increasing the percentage of local party members needed to trigger a reselection process for their MP - up to 50% from a third
  • Scrapping registered supporters - where voters can pay a one-off fee to vote in the leadership election
  • Another rule where people will have to have been a party member for six months before they can vote for a leader
Click to expand...

I think they are pretty sensible... especially the registered supporters and qualifying period to vote.
 
You need to have been a party member for six months before you're deemed worthy enough of voting for a Labour leader.

But you can be a member for six weeks and get handpicked by said leader to be a Labour candidate for a parliamentary seat.
 


I suspect these dissenting voices will be investigated and kicked out.
 
Dobba said:
You need to have been a party member for six months before you're deemed worthy enough of voting for a Labour leader.

But you can be a member for six weeks and get handpicked by said leader to be a Labour candidate for a parliamentary seat.
Click to expand...
Keir "anti democratic" Starmer.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Maybe just allowing him back into the party would be a progresive start towards party unity.
Click to expand...
He was allowed back into the party

But has the whip suspended so he sits as an independent mp

Corbyns legal team have lodged papers to challenge this suspension in the high Court (26th November 2020 this was lodged)

Of course there may be several more pressing legal actions ahead for his team with numerous cases against him progressing including a potentially very expensive libel case and of course he is already under investigation for the funding of his numerous legal issues

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...sleaze-investigation-parliament-b1880720.html

Personally I don't think lifting the suspension whilst he is still involved in legal action regarding antisemitism as well as him taking legal action against the leader plus of course being under investigation in Parliament wouldn't be especially unifying.

Will be interesting to see if the libel action makes it to court before the next general election... and of course if not will corbyn stand as an independent against Labour?

My gut feel is he will be too busy whoring his mouth out to Russia today again trying to pay off libel damages by then

His case against Labour isn't going so well
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...nstatement-labour_uk_60119ac4c5b6a08142739adc

Nor is his "zionists who don't understand English irony" case
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-set-face-libel-23948113.amp

With that in the background I can't see giving him the whip back (because as I said he's still in the party) would be unifying
 
sun_tzu said:
He was allowed back into the party

But has the whip suspended so he sits as an independent mp

Corbyns legal team have lodged papers to challenge this suspension in the high Court (26th November 2020 this was lodged)

Of course there may be several more pressing legal actions ahead for his team with numerous cases against him progressing including a potentially very expensive libel case and of course he is already under investigation for the funding of his numerous legal issues

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...sleaze-investigation-parliament-b1880720.html

Personally I don't think lifting the suspension whilst he is still involved in legal action regarding antisemitism as well as him taking legal action against the leader plus of course being under investigation in Parliament wouldn't be especially unifying.

Will be interesting to see if the libel action makes it to court before the next general election... and of course if not will corbyn stand as an independent against Labour?

My gut feel is he will be too busy whoring his mouth out to Russia today again trying to pay off libel damages by then

His case against Labour isn't going so well
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...nstatement-labour_uk_60119ac4c5b6a08142739adc

Nor is his "zionists who don't understand English irony" case
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-set-face-libel-23948113.amp

With that in the background I can't see giving him the whip back (because as I said he's still in the party) would be unifying
Click to expand...
The NEC removed Corbyns suspension and made no recommendations for him to be removed as an MP.

This is on Starmer and his intent to purge or split the party.

"A disciplinary panel of the party’s national executive committee (NEC) lifted the suspension of Corbyn’s party membership on Tuesday after he issued a conciliatory statement “clarifying” controversial remarks..."

Starmer said. “In those circumstances, I have taken the decision not to restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn. I will keep this situation under review.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-labour-whip-despite-having-suspension-lifted

He then follows this controversial move up with an anti democratic attempt to change leadership rules, going against his 10 pledges and against the very system that got him elected. Starner is on a roll, a roll out of leadership at this rate.

Meanwhile, in the first Labour conference post COVID and maybe the penultimate one before the next election, no coverage is given to, UK COVID failings, social care crisis and the inadequate solution proposed by the Tories, the cut in Universal credit, the proposed charge for COVID tests in the future and the petrol/gas shortage following a disastrous Brexit. Not to mention the disregard given to peace in Northern Ireland.

Keir "own goal" Starmer. What a calamity.
 
Last edited:
Fluctuation0161 said:
The NEC removed Corbyns suspension and made no recommendations for him to be removed as an MP.

This is on Starmer and his intent to purge or split the party.

"A disciplinary panel of the party’s national executive committee (NEC) lifted the suspension of Corbyn’s party membership on Tuesday after he issued a conciliatory statement “clarifying” controversial remarks..."

Starmer said. “In those circumstances, I have taken the decision not to restore the whip to Jeremy Corbyn. I will keep this situation under review.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-labour-whip-despite-having-suspension-lifted

He then follows this controversial move up with an anti democratic attempt to change leadership rules, going against his 10 pledges and against the very system that got him elected. Starner is on a roll, a roll out of leadership at this rate.

Meanwhile no coverage is given to, UK COVID failings, social care crisis and the inadequate solution proposed by the Tories, the cut in Universal credit, the proposed charge for COVID tests in the future and the petrol/gas shortage following a disastrous Brexit. Not to mention the disregard given to peace in Northern Ireland.

Keir "own goal" Starmer. What a calamity.
Click to expand...

Crack on... could do with a laugh

richard-burgon-2019-2A4RN61.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.