It’s all a bit confusing but I think the simplest solution is to accuse anyone who you don’t agree with of being a racist, that should cover it.
I know right? Who'd have though politicians could be all so...Politician-y and twist words and make shit up and not tell the whole truth and bewilder and distract...
A “f****** racist” according to Labour MP Margaret Hodge.
The same Margaret Hodge who used the term 'indigenous people' to appeal to racists in her constituency? The same Margaret Hodge who enjoys her considerable wealth due to exploitation of the apartheid system in South Africa?
Right.
They call her Hodge the Hypocrite
But she claims to be a Semite which means that if you criticise her that makes you a racist.
But I’ll ask the same question again: those who think Starmer is better than Corbyn as Labour leader; how do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
I don't happen to think Starmer is a better leader than Corbyn (both are bad in their own ways) but I can't see how Corbyn would have achieved the changes any more than Starmer could.
A government can improve society with it's policies and actions to a certain extent but the people have to want to change and removing the me, me, me that Thatcher started is not a quick or easy thing.
Deleted - no point going over the same stuff
I can’t see how Corbyn would have achieved the changes any more than Starmer could.
That's not answering the question I asked though. Which was:
How do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
Have a great weekend all.
Which then begs the question how are they going to retain those who did vote for them previously?
Well in my case they won't be. Labour is not a party. Its a group of disparate factions who only want to win the argument (not saying other parties arent they just seem to make it work as required) . In my opinion, and only that for myself alone, I will not be voting Labour again anytime soon if at all.
How do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
It can't and it wont. Only true political reform will achieve that.
In my lifetime I cannot recall a truly decent society. We are all played off against each other and always for soneone else's gain. Very sad.
What about the George Formby Society?
What about the George Formby Society?
Just as bad - whilst one bloke is grafting cleaning windows, there is some lazy bastard leaning against a lamp post.
Further to the fall of socialism debate a couple of pages back, have a look at what's happening in Germany now. The SPD look like being a major force in the next government.
I don't think I would call SPD socialists Ed but if you are referring to the latest opinion polls I can't see any significant increase in their support.
All recent opinion polls appear to show their share of the vote at 25% or less, which is exactly what the
SPD have received in all the federal elections of the last 10 years, ie 25% or less.
When the SPD were last in power they had a 40% share of the vote. If they are in a stronger position now than at any other time in the last 10 years it appears to be purely because of a significant fall in support for the Christian Democrats, not because of any increase in support for the SPD.
It has to be said that appears to be Starmer's strategy - do and say nothing and hope and pray that the Tories become unpopular.
IMO it's a shit strategy because firstly it is very far from reliable and secondly it does not offer any real alternative, just "different people".
Politics really needs to be about more than well-delivered rhetorics and personalities.
Politics really needs to be about more than well-delivered rhetorics and personalities.
Politics as it used to be (ie setting policy and 'doing stuff') is dead in this country. It's nothing more than a media driven soap opera to fill newspapers and news channels, and a vehicle for ambitious narcissists with Dunning-Kruger to develop their careers in an environment where success is not related to achievement. When it comes down to it we're not that much different to China. At least the chinese communists are honest about their patriarchal grip on power.
This is a far more powerful means of controlling people than simply offering proper democracy.
Can you point to a country with "proper democracy", or is it just a concept in your head?
But I’ll ask the same question again: those who think Starmer is better than Corbyn as Labour leader; how do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
Your question implies acceptance of a paradigm that we live in an indecent society without a functioning democracy. Rather than the boring reality that we live in a pretty decent society that could do better with a functioning democracy that could do better as well but essentially allows the key thing which throwing out the incumbents.
Come now Ernie, get up to date with German politics, there are new kids on the block. The Greens have taken from both the CDU/CSU and the CDU. What's significant is that those two are neck and neck in the polls and the very latest ones put the socialists ahead.
essentially allows the key thing which throwing out the incumbents.
But only if they're to be replaced by someone functionally identical.
the very latest ones put the socialists ahead.
You do know that socialists and social democrats aren't exactly the same thing right?
allows the key thing which throwing out the incumbents.
just like Russia then. Putin was elected by a majority, no?
But. Anyway. I just dropped in to see if anyone had spotted KS saying anything worth repeating about Afghanistan - you know, criticising the govt or some such "opposition-like" activity?
Yes, Grum.
It think Starmer is best to keep his head down on Afghanistan, DrJ, as whatever he says will rightly be turned around as "who ****ing started it anyhow?"
as whatever he says will rightly be turned around as “who * started it anyhow?”
Easily answered by who * happily voted for it. Plus regardless of who started it the ineptitude ending it is a separate issue.
Come now Ernie, get up to date with German politics, there are new kids on the block.
I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding Ed. As far as I am aware there wasn't a "fall of socialism debate a couple of pages back".
I did however suggest that collapse in support for the Labour Party was in line with a global trend which many people have identified and call Pasokification.
This trend has seen support for old well-established social democratic parties, who claim to be "centre-left" but have pursued right-wing policies, collapse.
Conservative parties have mostly benefited from this situation except when occasionally radical left parties such as Podemos and Syriza have.
And yes I gave Germany as one example. I don't however think that the latest opinion polls which show that the SDP are still polling the same 25% or less that they have for the last 10 years, compared to the 40% they polled when last in power, provides a different picture.
If the SDP are seen as being in a stronger position than they have been recently it is only because the Christian Democrats have become significantly weaker. After many years in power their support has waned. And yes, support for the Greens might well have grown, do you think that this vindicates the SDP?
If after many years of Tory rule support for the Tories falls and support for the LibDems and Reform UK grows significantly whilst support for Labour stays the same, but Labour are in a much stronger position because they suddenly become the largest party, will you think think that will vindicate Keir Starmer?
If Starmer's strategy is to hope that the Tories will lose support to other smaller parties, if he expects other parties to make inroads into the Tory vote, that truly is a shit strategy on so many levels.
It is interesting how many people judge a party's strength not on the level of support they enjoy but in comparison to how well other parties do.
People like binners rant that Labour in 2019 did worse than at any time since 1935, or some other bollocks. In fact in 2019 Labour received a larger share of the vote than it did in 2015 under Ed Miliband or 2010 under Gordon Brown.
What happened in 2019 was that the Tories did particularly well, not that Labour had a historically low share of the vote. And the LibDems did very badly, they even had the humiliation of their leader losing her seat. The poor LibDem performance must have benefited the Tories.
I agree with most of that, Ernie. German politics has become increasingly fragmented. Something that the proportional representation system encourages as people feel they can vote with their hearts rather than for least worst/nearly best. A good thing IMO.
Greens all over Europe are generally seen as been left wing. The left doesn't have a monopoly over green politics but that unfortunately is the way the media are often keen to see it - anti-pinko-commie-green propaganda from right wing media mogals. The German Greens have done a lot to create their own identity but are still more likely to attracts voters from the left. Die Linke do so too (there's a similar problem in France with the left vote divided between several parties).
So when you start to add up all the socialist (social democratic) votes going to the left leaning parties there's the real possibility of a more left leaning coalition being formed if the polls are right and the SPD continues to gain support. The specualtion over which parties will form a koalition is always amusing.
People like binners rant that Labour in 2019 did worse than at any time since 1935, or some other bollocks. In fact in 2019 Labour received a larger share of the vote than it did in 2015 under Ed Miliband or 2010 under Gordon Brown.
Those comparisons are scraping the bottom of the barrel though aren't they. Brown after Labour being in so long and that financial crisis (which he got a lot of the blame for, yes I know) and the Miliband campaign, do we really need to comment on that.
However well Labour do, it is never quite enough is it and with the loss of Scotland they really haven't got much of a chance.
If only there were some kind of lesson to be drawn from Scotland, where a generally competent, reasonably disciplined centre left party under two personable leaders has been in power for a decade. 🤔
If only there were some kind of lesson to be drawn from Scotland, where a generally competent, reasonably disciplined centre left party under two personable leaders has been in power for a decade
Having lived in Scotland I think plenty of people would disagree with a fair bit of that statement.
https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1432729716834852869?s=19
This rant sums up to me what is going on in Labour just now and shows what a difficult job any Labour leader will have unless it was a Corbynite. But then they have a whole host of other problems.
The rant by 'super tanskiii'? That thread is full of provocative nonsense she even uses the classic ageist 'magic grandpa' insult so loved by binners. Claims she wants people to stop going on about Corbyn then goes on about Corbyn.
So what Corbyn gets kicked out of the party and then he's no longer allowed to participate in anything ever again? And he's simultaneously irrelevant but also single handedly handing power to the tories. Yeah...
Do you think Corbyn and his ilke should swallow some of their principles and work together to try and rid us of this tory government? I certainly do.
Do you think Corbyn and his ilke should swallow some of their principles and work together to try and rid us of this tory government?
How's he going to do that when he's been kicked out of the party?
How's swallowing his principles working out for Starmer/getting rid of the tories?
Grum - the snp have been getting around 50% of the vote for a decade. Thats higher than an westminster party has acheived
How’s he going to do that when he’s been kicked out of the party?
By not creating vote splitting factions to weaken the Labour vote. He had his chance and failed, twice.
Errmmm - how about the labour right wing that constantly briefed against corbyn? do they not carry any blame? Its them who would not get behind corbyn instead feeding damaging stories to the right wing press. Given how close Corbyn came to leading the largest party then you could easily say those labour right wingers are the ones who gave us the tory brexit government
Yes they do. But unless we end it then we are never going to get anywhere.
Ed you've missed the point that I was trying to make and yet have managed to hit the nail right on the head!!
My original reference to Pasokification was to draw attention that the Labour Party is victim to a recent global trend in which the old "established" social democratic parties have seen their support collapse.
Part of their problem is that in government they have pursued conservative/austerity polices but also a big problem for them is that they are now seen as very much part of the "establishment", a fairly recent development which is associated with their behaviour in government.
Yes of course new smaller parties such as the Greens will pick some of their support, as you point out, because they aren't seen as part of the "establishment", plus they appear to offer something different.
Unfortunately far-right parties also appear to offer something different.
And traditional conservative parties also benefit. Because if social democratic "centre-left" parties peddle conservative policies it doesn't really make the case for not voting conservative.
One of the very first things Gordon Brown did when he took over Tony Blair and became prime minister was to invite Margaret Thatcher to Downing Street for tea and a photo opportunity on the steps of Number 10.
By then Thatcher was already senile, he didn't invite her for advice on how to run the country, it was to send out a clear message to everyone. And that message was that he would govern as New Labour and fully embrace Thatcherism, just like his predecessor, ie, not to expect any changes in direction (it was mostly a message for the left of the party)
But it also sent out another message - that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with conservative policies.
Which of course begs the question, why the **** shouldn't people vote conservative? "We're just like them but nicer" isn't a very convincing argument.
By not creating vote splitting factions to weaken the Labour vote
I genuinely don't see how speaking at a conference fringe event is creating a vote splitting faction to weaken the Labour vote.
Grum apologies, I read it incorrectly.
Let's see what he says at the conference.
By not creating vote splitting factions to weaken the Labour vote.
I don't think that's true, but regardless, he's not a member of the Labour Party.
I thought he was. He’s not a Labour MP, but he is a member. Anyway, it’s not really been him attacking Labour from the left of the party since he lost the whip, it’s people using his name. Same as it wasn’t Starmer attacking the party while Corbyn was leader, but others on the right of the party… but all that left/right noise that turns off voters is hung around their necks because they are names to rally around/against.
He’s not a Labour MP, but he is a member
If he doesn't have the Labour whip restored before the next general election he will be barred from standing as a Labour candidate.
Image what that will do for party unity and the focus required to defeat the Tories.
But for Starmer and the Blairites there are plenty of issues more important than that, as they repeatedly make clear.
For them sabotaging the party is a price well worth paying.
He’s still a member. And as a past leader focus on him can’t be neutralised by the current leader, no matter what they do. We’re at the point now that restoring the whip to Corbyn will damage Starmer just as much as not doing so. Nothing is going to change there now. He won’t be a Labour MP again under this leader, and probably not under not the next one if they take over any time soon.
If he doesn’t have the Labour whip restored before the next general election he will be barred from standing as a Labour candidate.
He'll be 75 at the next election, pale, male and stale. He should retire gracefully.
He should retire gracefully.
Perhaps he should but it's not about that is it?
It's about unity of the party and its ability to focus on fighting the Tories and not themselves.
Starmer using his excessive personal powers to circumvent a decision made by the NEC to restore Corbyn's party membership isn't contributing to that.
It is simply perpetuating division, distraction, and fighting. I doubt that he cares though.
Personally I have little sympathy for Corbyn, imo he is hugely responsible for the situation he finds himself in.
He does however still enjoy huge personal support within the party whose leadership he overwhelming won not that long ago. No one who is genuinely interested in the unity of the party would callously run roughshod over that support.
The was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it. Nothing Starmer can do now will fix that. If he supports returning the whip to Corbyn he is screwed. If he continues to block that happening he is screwed.
The was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it.
How the **** did Corbyn "blow it" ???
He bent over backwards for the Blairites. He tried to keep everyone happy with his constructive ambiguity nonsense. He made an arch remainer shadow brexit secretary. He refused to discipline an MP who publicly called him "a f****** racist" with his "I want kinder politics" bollocks. He did whatever he could to keep the Zionists sweet, despite the fact that it was ****ing obvious that nothing would satisfy them short of his complete dimise.
How the **** do you think Corbyn sowed disunity?
The was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it.
There's some very fine people on both sides.
How the **** do you think Corbyn sowed disunity?
Corbyn had a record of being the most rebellious Labour politician through all the years of Labour government, voting against his own party 428 times*. How then can he turn to his fellow MPs after becoming leader and say with a straight face. "we must be united" On becoming leader he effectively became the largest dis unifying force in Labour and furthermore, he must have known that would happen (he's not daft after all), which makes him at best pretty bad at self reflection, and at worse disingenuous
You can't be a rebel, and then at the counting of a vote decide to become the head of the thing that you've constantly voted against and pushed aside, it doesn't work. As we all discovered
*EDIT: It bears reminding ourselves that this means voting to defeat your own party. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what he did (and I'm pretty certain many of his votes were morally justified) it's still means trying to help beat your own side.
