Forum menu
But the idea that only the “others” are at fault is not one I agree with.
Good thing no one has said that then.
Corbyn getting elected was completely out of order. Yvette Cooper had a face like a slapped arse for years after.
& the temerity to contest the second leadership election! The ****!
do you agree Kelvin?
Agree with what? That one “side” is more damaging than the other? Depends when you are talking about. If you mean this year, right now, then I think it’s pretty even stevens.
Anyway, Nazis have been mentioned. This is a waste of time.
I don't mean right now I mean since Corbyn was elected. God knows how you think its even stevens now!
On the one side you have expulsions and trying to change how leaders are elected to make sure a lefty never gets in and on the other? A couple of twitter posts?
Members were kicked out of the party while Corbyn was leader. Corbyn and his leadership team also (rightly in many cases, in my opinion) changed how the party made decisions. I’ve already said that I think Starmer and his team are making a big mistake pushing for their reforms, as regards how the leader is chosen, right now, especially if they look like a return to old ways, rather than a fresh approach.
But even stevens over the piece and now?
Members were kicked out of the party while Corbyn was leader.
Who? How many? Were there groups that were banned expelling hundreds of members at a stroke? Were there people going over old social media posts to see if anyone had ever supported Blairites so they could be expelled?
You do talk some nonsense kelvin but you're really excelling yourself now.
Were there people going over old social media posts to see if anyone had ever supported Blairites so they could be expelled?
People were kicked out for tweets that were supportive of Green candidates. How many? No idea. Labour’s rules about who can be a member, and what excludes you, has been a mess for a long time. That’s why I’ve not become a member, I’ll vocally support any candidate I want, thank you very much, even if I vote Labour and want a Labour government.
Are you talking about this? 😂
No, never heard of her. I’m referring to people I know.
Ah so something no one can check/confirm, ok, well now I'm convinced.
Well, if you want an example the press covered:
Were supportive of Labour standing aside for an independent to stand on NHS issues against Hunt while he was health secretary. Labour rules don’t allow such eminently non-tribal actions. If they did, I’d join.
Also, most of the people kicked out under Corbyn were his supporters, and they were kicked out to undermine him, not by him. Jeez.
Aaaaand, your example is of someone actively campaigning for a candidate running against a labour candidate, which has never been allowed.
I'm happy for Labour to try and consider more co-operative approaches too but if that's really the best you've got to support your argument...
Yvette Cooper had a face like a slapped arse for years after.
she is a corrupt idiot. totally unfit to be an MP.
kelvin
Full Member
Myopic.
This thread is now as messy and confused as Labour's internal squabbles.
Carry on.
kelvin is very messy and confused rn.
Members were kicked out of the party while Corbyn was leader
Correct: HQ put a lot of effort into denying people the chance to vote for Corbyn.
kelvin is very messy and confused rn.
Yeah, how dare I point out that Labour is always expelling people.
All expulsions are about Corbyn… is that what you really think?
Even stevens though?
Right now, including those on the left who have left the party, absolutely. All that NIP stuff? How was that helpful? All the “Keith” hilarity? Red Tories? All in the name of uniting Labour I suppose.
I think you're on twitter too much
Keith vs changing the way the leader is elected?
Keith vs changing the way the leader is elected?
I don't think we're going to shake Kevin out of his false equivalence schtick.
changing the way the leader is elected?
I’ve said they shouldn’t be doing that right now. But under Corbyn the party was also reformed as to its decision making. And under Miliband. And back, and back. The way the leader is elected absolutely needs reforming at some point though. Or Labour will keep being out manoeuvred by a Tory party that replaces its leaders ruthlessly and relatively quickly.
false equivalence schtick
Sorry I don’t share the viewpoint that it is only those on the right of the party that are responsible for its divisions. Or even that it is more the fault of those on the right. The left absolutely are just as culpable. Compromise is required, and the focus should be on getting the Tories out of government, and Labour elected, to affect change by implementing left wing policies.
I'm amazed anyone could think that its even stevens.
Or even that it is more the fault of those on the right. The left absolutely are just as culpable
This is absolute bullshit. The left simply does not have the power to be "just as culpable". The right is picking the fight, not the left.
I’m amazed anyone could think that its even stevens.
I'm afraid it's part of the narrative: blame the left for your screw ups.
Compromise is required, and focus on getting the Tories out of government, and Labour elected, to affect change by implementing left wing policies.
Under the current leader and those who support him this is a fantasy. He hasn’t compromised, he doesn’t seem too bothered about removing the tories, and he certainly isn’t interested in ‘left wing’ policies.
His only job is regain the power the PLP had during the Blair years. That’s it. They would rather have a Tory government than give up on this singular goal. They’ll fail I think, but we will end up with Tory hegemony, and all because labour MPs are too cowed and insecure to fight for the things they say they believe in.
blame the left for your screw ups
I am of the left. Labour is divided. That division needs to be bridged by those on both sides to take the battle to the Tories. Currently, they must be thanking their lucky stars that Labour is yet again fighting left/right battles and letting them get on with asset stripping the UK and looking after their mates at our expense.
Well guys, SKS has finally set out his vision, or tried to anyway.
Looks like the nationalisation stuff Ed Milliband was talking about only a couple of weeks ago is out, and he wants to 'repair the public finances', whatever that means. All seems like just more vague waffle about maybe making things a bit nicer.
He also wants people to 'take back control'
“The desire of people across the country to have real power and control – expressed most forcibly in the Brexit vote – remains unmet,” he says. “The next Labour government must deliver sustainable growth, repair the public finances and give people the means to take back control.”
Anyone have any idea what this actually means?
As an aside - it doesn't even seem to get a mention on the BBC news homepage. Make of that what you will.
Anyone have any idea what this actually means?
It doesn't need to specifically mean anything, he is following the tories approach (which seems to work for them) "Levelling up", "Taking back control" and so on.
They mean whatever you want them to mean but also mean nothing at all.
Who is going to disagree with sustainable growth (rather than non sustainable growth) or giving more control to people (rather than taking away control)?
He will get ripped apart under any political questioning but that doesn't matter as none (well less than 5%) of the voters watch that boring political stuff but they hear the high level messages if repeated enough times.
Not sure if it will work, probably won't make any difference, but can see what he is trying to do.
but can see what he is trying to do
It’s still about what Johnson and his team are failing, and will fail, to do. Hoping the public will turn on them isn’t enough. Sitting and waiting for that, rather then seeking to inspire, isn’t enough. Pick that path all the way to the next election and the government will just promise (again) to fix their own mess, and use upbeat lies to stand against their own record. They can pull that nonsense off, again. Starmer is not the person to counter and shine the hard light of ridicule on that. It was true when he became leader, and there is not a hint of that changing. He can not be left in place to fight the next election. The blandness of this pre-conference nothingness, and the conference speech itself (if people even notice it) will make that clear to everyone.
I think Miliband will be leader again. I’d rather it was someone else, but he has shown that he gets where Labour should be, and how it should be engaging. COP23 will be the big story soon, not conference, and Miliband will show so much more passion and urgency than Starmer as regards what we need to do as regards climate change that he’ll look like the obvious replacement.
[ COP26, obvs. I’d have edited it if the edit window wasn’t shorter than this website’s response time. ]
That division needs to be bridged by those on both sides to take the battle to the Tories.
The right holds all the aces. At the moment it is provoking a needless fight and is rowing back on a key manifesto pledge, presumably to undermine Miliband who will be seen as a rival. Dazh is absolutely right: this is about shoring up power within the PLP.
That statement could have been written by any of the parliamentary parties (v similar to Cameron) and the fact that the Guardian has gone easy on it reflects how vacuous it is. I don't think he's bothered about popularity or membership, he's there to do a job on the Labour Party and that is his intention.
He can not be left in place to fight the next election.
He's not going anywhere unfortunately.
At the moment it is provoking a needless fight
The organisations that Labour have lastly proscribed are:
1. Socialist Appeal: Avowed Trotskyists who are essentially the remains of what used to be Militant (and we know how well that went)
2. Labour In Exile Movement: Who's expressed aim is to provide a home for expelled members (regardless of why they were expelled)
3. Resist. Lead by Chris Williamson and Dave Roberts; I can't think for a moment why those two people should be expelled. Said no one ever...[sarcasm/]
4. Labour against the Witch-hunt: Again I can't understand why a party that's seeking to rebuild relationship with the Jewish community wouldn't look kindly upon an organisation which specifically denies there's an issue...[sarcasm/]
This is the Left wing purge that some posters keep on about. Feel free to point out why any sensible leadership would have these organisations within it's party?
4. Labour against the Witch-hunt
'the Jewish community' isn't a homogenous block. Jackie Walker is jewish, as well as numerous others in LATWH - but they're the wrong type of Jews obviously and should be sidelined/vilified.
Resist. Lead by Chris Williamson
Can you tell me what Chris Williamson actually did that was so terrible? I don't know about Dave Roberts.
It's a very creepy McCarthyite situation where the right can smear/purge the left at will with the full support of the media/Tories etc, but even acknowledging that it's happening is sufficient evidence for you to be purged too.
Can you tell me what Chris Williamson actually did that was so terrible?
AFAIK he broke the rules of the organisation he was a member of.
It’s a very creepy McCarthyite situation where the right can smear/purge the left
Again. These ARE the organisations that the Labour party have proscribed. Only one of those organisations is avowedly to the left of the mainstream Labour movement*. The other three are entirely reactionary movements created by people that have been expelled for activity other than being to the left of the mainstream. two of them are as a direct result of the Anti Semitism issues of the last couple of years.
Why should they be allowed to remain within Labour ranks. they can and still do operate outside it with no hindrance.
*edit: and is, in reality, so far to the left of the mainstream Labour view one should really question whether it shares enough common ground
I was saying the complete opposite, that there are people complicit on both sides as regards an inwards looking at war with itself Labour Party. Not “fine people” at all, but myopic fools gifting Johnson and his fellow travellers a free ride.
Those 'myopic fools' were the very ones who continually undermined Corbyn, and utterly failed to get behind the party in order to effectively challenge the tories, which led to the election disaster. That is 100% down to them. They're the right wing Blairites who are more than happy to destroy Labour, simply for their own personal gain. Anyone who is now challenging that right wing cabal. Isn't 'myopic', they're seeing the disaster for what it really is. It's ironic that your own 'myopia' prevents you from seeng this yourself.
That is 100% down to them
It was a factor, but was far from the whole story, corbyn made plenty of mistakes himself, as leader and in his past.
Denying that gets labour nowhere
Feel free to point out why any sensible leadership would have these organisations within it’s party?
Feel free to point out why any sensible leadership would want a right-wing organisation such as Blue Labour connected in any way with the party?
"Tuesday’s speech was the first time that Starmer could speak directly to the nation about who he was and what he stood for. Labour is under no pressure to develop a manifesto, it needed a general direction of travel, a sense of mission and of vision. A sense of the temper of the man who was leading it. And he seized the opportunity to express the ethics of a profoundly conservative person in a way that no member of the Conservative front bench possibly could."
.
Those ‘myopic fools’ were the very ones who continually undermined Corbyn, and utterly failed to get behind the party in order to effectively challenge the tories, which led to the election disaster. That is 100% down to them. They’re the right wing Blairites who are more than happy to destroy Labour, simply for their own personal gain. Anyone who is now challenging that right wing cabal. Isn’t ‘myopic’, they’re seeing the disaster for what it really is. It’s ironic that your own ‘myopia’ prevents you from seeng this yourself.
It's all about revenge, nothing else.
The left haven't got any leadership figures putting their head above the parapet as a potential successor to Starmer. It's just about stopping a labour success under Starmer.
What is about revenge? What is it the left are supposedly doing? Co-ordinated resignations, constant smears in the media, open hostility/mockery/insults towards the leader? No confidence votes? Admitting to actively undermining him? Expressing hope that he loses?
Um no there's just some muttering that he's doing a crap job, which even his previous supporters admit.
There's some spectacular double standards going on here, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
It’s all about revenge, nothing else.
What was the Funny Tinge Party all about then? That was actual 'revenge', not the nonsense you're imagining.
There’s some spectacular double standards going on here, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
I think what is happening here, is that the Armresters are now seeing Starmer for what he really is, but having 'backed' him against that awful Jeremy Corbyn, with his awful policies that everyone actually seems to like, they cannot concede they were wrong, as their egos won't allow it, so instead have to attack the 'other side'. 'Oh but look at those awful Lefties they're so mean and nasty!'.
Pathetic. Not to mention cowardly. Takes real courage to admit you were wrong. We've not seen any of that displayed here. And that's typical of the right. Gutless.
The organisations that Labour have lastly proscribed are:
No idea what you're on about. I'm talking about the proposed changes to make the party less democratic. Quite a slap in the face for all those on the left who compromised by voting for Starmer, having been promised a unity platform. It would seem that the compromises are all in one direction.
Mandelson in the Guardian today being both economically illiterate and to the right of the Tories in terms of Tax and spend nonesense.
What a shower.
*they worry that the “big state” and spending and taxation that they associate with recent Labour manifestos would mean Labour losing control of the public finances. Labour, therefore, needs to focus hard on assuring as well as inspiring voters."
That - is the exact opposite of the reality of what is needed .
The Labour Party is the problem not the solution.
Thank you.
Just about sums it up. When the western economy is transitioning to a post-neoliberal phase labour are banging the drum for 20th century economics which is unable to put food in mouths and fund health and social care. Even Boris gets it FFS.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1440960227243958272?s=20
they worry that the “big state” and spending and taxation that they associate with recent Labour manifestos would mean Labour losing control of the public finances. Labour, therefore, needs to focus hard on assuring as well as inspiring voters.”
Much as I dislike Mandelson, that little clipping is about what the voters fear from Labour, and says that they need assuring before they will change their vote. How you do that I’m sure I’d disagree with him completely about, but it’s a fair assessment of one of the problems Labour faces if it wants to get the votes it needs. ‘Assuring and inspiring’ is a perfect three word description of what Labour need to do. It isn’t doing either though, is it. And I still don’t think Starmer will never be inspiring, even if he does manage to assure.
I’m talking about the proposed changes to make the party less democratic.
Personally I don't get that it is. There's nothing inherently undemocratic in weighing the votes of MPs more heavily than individual members. After all they represent on average 59,999 more people than I do. I don't think it needs to be done right now though.
Feel free to point out why any sensible leadership would want a right-wing organisation such as Blue Labour connected in any way with the party?
Is just what-aboutry. If you don't know something, it's ok just to say "I don't know"
Read bits of Starmer's pamphlet/speech/whatever...Apart from a few lines about more power to unions you could imagine it coming from a politician of any stripe really. very disappointing
And that’s typical of the right. Gutless.
Trying to build a broad consensus or just name calling to make yourself feel good?
What is about revenge? What is it the left are supposedly doing? Co-ordinated resignations, constant smears in the media, open hostility/mockery/insults towards the leader? No confidence votes? Admitting to actively undermining him? Expressing hope that he loses?
The conservatives are just the same, being a leader of one of the major parties is brutal
If Starmer can't reunite the party (and let's face it he's not doing well) Labour are just going to be infighting until he's replaced. Labour needs a leader who unite a broad coalition, manage the balance of the members, unions and the PLP in deciding policy etc. The problem at the moment is the left saw what happened to JC and feel free to do it to Starmer (except they aren't daft enough to try and create a new party).
This highlights the real issue, there isn't a prospective leader who has any profile who can unite Labour. Starmer is likely to be stuck in post unable to resolve the Gordian knot of labour internal wrangling.
But there could be one MP who could be "the one" ....
One day they may decide to follow the white rabbit....
Somewhere in a room in Leeds is
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
B
U
R
G
O
N
.
.
.
.
😉
Personally I don’t get that it is. There’s nothing inherently undemocratic in weighing the votes of MPs more heavily than individual members. After all they represent on average 59,999 more people than I do. I don’t think it needs to be done right now though.
Those 59,999 elect a constituency MP to represent their interests. If they wish to have a say in how the Labour Party is managed then they are free to join.
Is just what-aboutry. If you don’t know something, it’s ok just to say “I don’t know”
It isn't, if the party is only proscribing organisations on the left.
How do the 60,000 get through to the MP what their preferences are and who should be leader? Are MPs all pervasive and all knowing? Did the electorate not vote for a party on the basis of what they imagined party stands for, which is debated and evolved through the party membership who also go on the knocker?
It isn’t, if the party is only proscribing organisations on the left.
The party has proscribed one organisation to the left of mainstream Labour policies; Socialist Appeal. the other parties haven't been proscribed because the are left-wing, they've been proscribed because of other reasons (accepting expelled members and activities around the anti Semitism issues)
How do the 60,000 get through to the MP what their preferences are and who should be leader?
I've no idea, frankly. Like I said, it's not "inherently" undemocratic, but the devil is in the detail, isn't it?
Edit: I still maintain that regardless of whether it is or isn't it still makes makes most folk pause for thought, and shouldn't be the most pressing issue that the Labour leadership should be looking at right now
Yep, Jewish members are 4 times as likely to be expelled for AS than non-Jews.
Is just what-aboutry. If you don’t know something, it’s ok just to say “I don’t know”
I know full well why those groups have been 'proscribed'. It's all part of the relentless attack on the Left, by Starmer and the other Blairites. Who want to completely control the party for their own ends, and make it more right-wing. Something you and others seem loathe to admit and accept.
The problem at the moment is the left saw what happened to JC and feel free to do it to Starmer
It's not 'revenge' as you seem to imagine it; it's about trying to stop the party becoming merely another right-wing vehicle for power. Which, we've pretty much proven on here. Please feel free to explain just how the Left is using it's 'power' to expel undesirables, and. shut down party democracy, in the way the Blairites are. Please. We'd love to know.
The Labour Party is the problem not the solution.
I agree.
There’s nothing inherently undemocratic in weighing the votes of MPs more heavily than individual members
There is. You just don't understand what 'democracy' actually means.
I think the idea is that you have to be both committed to the labour party and be good at being an MP to get into that position. And then once there you get to work with the other MPs from which a leader would be elected. The membership are never really going to know the characters of potential leaders inside out like their fellow MPs are. Makes perfect sense to me.
It doesn't work for the hard-line nutters who spend heir days waging war on twitter. Another reason to do it.
I'd like him to go further.
The problem at the moment is the left saw what happened to JC and feel free to do it to Starmer
Absolute drivel.
Yep, Jewish members are 4 times as likely to be expelled for AS than non-Jews
Wrong type of Jews I'm afraid. They're not part of the 'Jewish community' despite being Jewish and committed community activists.
They don't fit in with the 'ideological purity' of right-wing pro-imperialist Labour.
Yep, Jewish members are 4 times as likely to be expelled for AS than non-Jews.
Sauce?
Edit: Sorry, On the face of it, that sounds really bizarre, where does that come from, could I ask?
Absolute drivel.
Nope, plenty of "they did worse to JC" on this thread
Wrong type of Jews I’m afraid. They’re not part of the ‘Jewish community’ despite being Jewish and committed community activists.
Or are they getting trapped by the politics of language? Feeling free to say things that if said by non-jews would be clearly seen as anti-Semitic? The issue of Israel/Palestine enrages lots of people and language can get heated very quickly, allegations easily made about people who are seen to be one side of the argument or the other, the arguments don't make any difference to the reality of the situation on the ground, it's just a meat grinder of political goodwill.
'Sauce'. I stand corrected:
'Jewish Voice for Labour tells EHRC that Jews almost five times more likely to face antisemitism charges than non-Jewish members.'
Feeling free to say things that if said by non-jews would be clearly seen as anti-Semitic?
Such as what?
‘Jewish Voice for Labour tells EHRC that Jews almost five times more likely to face antisemitism charges than non-Jewish members.’
Thanks BillMC. Members of a Jewish activist group who actively oppose some measures that are being promoted by another Jewish group are being reported by that group as being activist. There's a Jewish joke...Why does every town have two synagogues? so that you can attend one, and there's always another one that you don't ever have to step foot in...
I'll take it as the campaigning statistic it is.
Hopefully this is out of context tittle tattle…
https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1441043195505295363?s=21
Without the (hopefully strengthened) Green New Deal style policy platform at the next election, Labour can wave goodbye to younger voters… and instead… well, win over no one?
On the poorly timed sideshow that is how the leader is elected… a return to a block vote for the unions will make Labour look like a dinosaur. If it’s about the parliamentary party being led by someone the MPs want to lead them, then they should be honest and go back to MPs creating the shortlist, but then give the members an election based on that shortlist, one member one vote (including union members who have opted in).
the other parties haven’t been proscribed because the are left-wing, they’ve been proscribed because of other reasons (accepting expelled members and activities around the anti Semitism issues)
And their left wing positions are merely a coincidence, do you suppose? Along with Ken Loach?
*reaches for chinny reckon gif*
Such as what?
Not being privy to the cases I can't say. It was a genuine question, groups are very passionate about their views on the issue and it gets heated quickly. As exhibited on here, some people perform mental gymnastics to justify language which I would seek to avoid. When words and phrases of out and out antisemitic people are used it but are excused by context the lines for me get very blurry.
I’ll take it as the campaigning statistic it is.
What does that mean? 'I'll ignore it because it doesn't suit my agenda'?
allegations easily made about people who are seen to be one side of the argument or the other, the arguments don’t make any difference to the reality of the situation on the ground, it’s just a meat grinder of political goodwill.
What? I think being kicked out of the party for having a different opinion is making a difference to the reality of the situation on the ground. The fact that dozens of Jews have been investigated, suspended or ejected from the party for anti-semitism should really be ringing alarm bells, but predictably no one cares about the wrong sort of Jews.
‘I’ll ignore it because it doesn’t suit my agenda’?
No, not in the slightest. I'm sure it's true. But you have to admit, it suits the agenda of a campaigning organisation to be thusly accused, no? the JVL and the BOD are waging a very nasty war. My sympathies fall broadly with a left wing agenda (I personally find the BoD a bit weird, but that's probably by the by).
But to not see it as a catchy headline is a bit, IMO, naïve.
And their left wing positions are merely a coincidence, do you suppose?
You expelled a member from your party and then find that amongst the ranks of aligned groups is an organisation that especially invites expelled members to join...what would you do?
Not being privy to the cases I can’t say.
So just more made up imagined shite then? Right.
As you were.
When words and phrases of out and out antisemitic people are used it but are excused by context the lines for me get very blurry.
That doesn't even make sense.
the JVL and the BOD are waging a very nasty war.
They are, but the BoD etc hold all the cards - JVL are continually either sidelined or vilified.
Anyway, don't worry guys - Wes Streeting is going to save the day
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1441025634440990726
BTW does Owen Jones just do Labour gossip and rumour-mongering on twitter now?