No chance. Corbyn is light years away from where I am on environmental issues
jezza would re-open all the coal mines just so he could carry a big banner down a high street in Sunderland once a year
I was thinking of Stuart, Hoey, Mann, Austin and Woodcock
Hoey? Centrist? Hoey the rabid Brexiteer headbanger who spent the referendums campaign sharing a stage with Farage.
The irony of that being that if he hadn’t been accidentally elected labour leader, we all know full well who’d have happily been on that stage with them, railing nonsense about EU armies and federal superstates, don’t we?
Are you really suggesting that the hundreds of thousands of Corbyn fans you claim are still kicking about decided against voting for the Corbyn backed candidate who was going to continue in the same vein as Corbyn and had been his right hand woman all along due to a lust to unite the party? LOL.
RLB gained 135k votes compared with Corbyn's 313k votes in 2016.
She still got less than half the votes Starmer got though.
I guess that means she ‘won the argument’ 😂
I could probably get on with McDonnell though, he seems open to new ideas.
At last! Dazh posts something I can agree with.
= ;87)
She still got less than half the votes Starmer got though.
I guess that means she ‘won the argument’
The point was that some of JC's supporters did go to Starmer, which they quite obviously did.
Jezza goes legal.
Let's hope for SKS' sake they stuck to the rules then.
Hoey
A good socialist. Of the 'National' kind, that is.
She still got less than half the votes Starmer got though.
Err, that was my point.
So what you’re saying is that Grandads disciples rejected his anointed successor in order to vote for a ‘centrist’
Yes, that sounds like an absolutely credible theory
Or alternatively; there are far fewer Corbynite nutters than the disproportionate amount of noise they make would suggest?
Lots of people who voted for Corbyn as leader voted for Starmer, not Long-Bailey, yes.
Much as you'd like it to be true binners, not everyone who supported Corbyn was a 1970s marxist lunatic. Try to see things in a less cartoonish/childish way, it would really make these threads a lot more bearable.
So what you’re saying is that Grandads disciples rejected his anointed successor in order to vote for a ‘centrist’
Yes branes, that's what I'm saying. It's not exactly difficult to see why people chose Corbyn over Owen Smith.
Or alternatively; there are far fewer Corbynite nutters than the disproportionate amount of noise they make would suggest?
FFS man I've always said the idea that anyone who supported Corbyn was a marxist headbanger was a fantasy that only you have. You've constructed an alternate reality where everyone who voted for Corbyn is a cap wearing, communist manifesto quoting socialist worker. It's all bollocks.
As I've told you before, the vast majority of Corbyn supporters were older working class socialists combined with the younger generation of environmental and human rights acitivists/supporters (like myself) who saw an opportunity to bring their anti-establishment fringe politics into the mainstream. The thing that united them wasn't Corbyn the personality, it was the chance to finally defeat the jaded and cynical politics of the Blair era which resulted in the Iraq war.
As I’ve told you before, the vast majority of Corbyn supporters were older working class socialists combined with the younger generation of environmental and human rights acitivists/supporters (like myself) who saw an opportunity to bring their anti-establishment fringe politics into the mainstream.
That pretty much describes the Labour Party membership, not a section of it. There are a huge number of the membership that do not stick there flag in any camp and who will vote for whichever leader they fancy at the time. The 'left' didn't lend their vote to Starmer, like you say. You over estimate the amount of people that think like you.
Kier on Desert Island Discs this morning , comes across like a pretty nice guy.
They never invited Jeremy to do Desert Island Discs!
#BIASEDMSM
(Just imagine his choices...!)
You over estimate the amount of people that think like you.
I don't think I do, because even when I talk to friends in the party who are more centrist I agree with them on almost everything, even binners! The differences aren't in the membership, it's between the membership and the PLP. It's a simple mathematical fact that huge numbers of Corbyn supporters voted for Starmer, as otherwise he wouldn't have won. They didn't 'lend' (stupid phrase BTW!) their votes to him, they supported him on the basis of his promises, which he is now breaking, running the risk of a leadership which doesn't have the ongoing support of the membership. That's not a great place to be if you want to win an election.
I see no promises broken. Unless you refer to "unity"... on which, again... he doesn't control what Corbyn says and does, he just has to pick what he thinks is the least worst of the shitty options Corbyn has left him with... I think he picked the wrong one... but there is no good one... and neither option breaks any promise. Unless you think that "unity" means putting up with whatever Corbyn does, because he's Corbyn.
Unless you think that “unity” means putting up with whatever Corbyn does, because he’s Corbyn.
No I think it means respecting, listening to, and involving 'the left' in the decisions he makes and the direction he takes the party in. I see very little evidence he's doing that, and lots that shows he isn't. At pretty much every juncture, he's taken the side of the PLP right wing and ignored the views of members and activists. If unity means 'do everything we say and shut up' then he's doing a very good job, but ultimately it'll come back to bite him when he needs the membership to do some work for him and he goes into an election with internal divisions and factional infighting.
they supported him on the basis of his promises, which he is now breaking
can you list the policies he's changed? Because I can't think of one.
What he's done is taken party discipline seriously. Jezza picked and chose when he enforced party discipline. If he bothered at all. The drift was allowed the whole AS to fester as the man at the top failed to take the decisive action that was required
What Starmer is doing is providing actual leadership, something Corbyn was either incapable of or unwilling to do. Or in reality, both.
They never invited Jeremy to do Desert Island Discs!
#BIASEDMSM
(Just imagine his choices…!)
what? binners didn't post...
At pretty much every juncture, he’s taken the side of the PLP right wing and ignored the views of members and activists.
throw up some examples then, cos like Binners I can’t think of any off the top of my head
Kier on Desert Island Discs this morning , comes across like a pretty nice guy.
Ah yes the "honest this wasnt focus grouped" but just happened to try and appeal to all the target audiences at once.
Ah yes the “honest this wasnt focus grouped” but just happened to try and appeal to all the target audiences at once.
Whatever. If you accept that the whole thing was a cynical exercise in manipulation (which I don't, only some of it was), it is a still a million times more professional than a bumbling old fool in a tatty sweater.
What would Jezza's choices have been, I wonder.
1.The Internationale, obvs.
2.New World Symphony, but brass pit band only.
3.Every Breath You Take.
4.Something by Wagner.
I reckon that's largely covered it.
it is a still a million times more professional than a bumbling old fool in a tatty sweater.
Yes nothing says professional more than lying through your teeth about what actually interests you and pretending it wasnt carefully chosen. Still I guess dishonesty works for Johnson so might as well follow his lead.
Ah yes the “honest this wasnt focus grouped” but just happened to try and appeal to all the target audiences at once.
They all do it, it's 30 mins of free publicity in a well loved concept which makes you look good no matter what you select.
Nobody is going to sit there and be 100% honest about themselves
Three Lions was an utterly cringeworthy choice! The interview as a whole was interesting though.
Three Lions? Oh dear.
I'll have a listen to that.
Does this go in with the other examples, like David Cameron saying that Eton Rifles was his favourite song to which Paul Weller commented: "which bit didn't he ****ing get?", or Gordon Brown saying he was presently listening to the Arctic Monkeys?
I'm picturing a Thick Of It type meeting where they wargame various song options with Malcolm Tucker 😀
Three Lions? Oh dear.
Just the type of authenticity we need. And they wonder why the public despise politicians.
Actually, now I've had a listen to it and I know the context I'm going to let him off with it.
He's a massive footy fan and player, and it reminds him of being at Wembley for England v Germany
I thought he came across really well overall and it didn't sound focus-grouped at all
Diva by Dana International would have ticked soooooo many boxes.
Missed opportunity there.
He should have picked the Red Flag, what a sell out.
It’s a simple mathematical fact that huge numbers of Corbyn supporters voted for Starmer, as otherwise he wouldn’t have won. They didn’t ‘lend’ (stupid phrase BTW!) their votes to him, they supported him on the basis of his promises, which he is now breaking, running the risk of a leadership which doesn’t have the ongoing support of the membership.
No it's not. I voted for Corbyn but was never a particular fan of his. I also voted for Starmer and he has not really done anything unexpected so far. By your logic everyone who voted for Starmer is now a Starmer supporter, even those who voted for Corbyn. There are far more shades of grey than you seem to realise.
Yes nothing says professional more than lying through your teeth about what actually interests you and pretending it wasnt carefully chosen. Still I guess dishonesty works for Johnson so might as well follow his lead.
Yes nothing says "not wanting to give someone you don't like on ideological grounds credit for anything" like saying they are 'lying through their teeth' whilst having absolutely no idea whether it is true or not.
You stick with Grandpa. Like two completely dissimilar things in a pod.
At the risk of derailing this thread into another circular repeation nightmare.
The left demonstrated they were willing to move on by supporting Starmer in the leadership election and his intention to unify the party.
Labour membership over time:
Undeniably membership jumped hugely under Corbyn. To around 580,000 from around 200,000.
In the leadership voting:
401,564 members voted.
Starmer won in the first round with 225,135 votes, so even if we assume that literally every pre Corbyn member voted for Starmer (and they didn't leave in that period which seems unlikely) then that's potentially an extra 25,000 "Corbyn members" who put Starmer as their first vote. (Affiliates makes this hard to prove)
This is the minimum that could of done that, in reality it's likely way higher than that, and the number of pre Corbyn members that left in the Corbyn years is likely much higher than 0.
It's not hard to believe that a decent chunk of "Corbyn members" switched to Starmer at least as one choice on their votes.
You stick with Grandpa. Like two completely dissimilar things in a pod.
Could we give the ageism a rest?
Could we give the ageism a rest?
Ok, I'll rephrase it.
Keep your ideological 'purity' and thus condemn Labour to be a political irrelevance for another few years.
Undeniably membership jumped hugely under Corbyn. To around 580,000 from around 200,000.
Membership isn't votes in a GE.
Keep your ideological ‘purity’ and thus condemn Labour to be a political irrelevance for another few years.
I see this criticism a lot here but don't know what it means.
You've got more chance of getting elected if you have fewer principles. It is an unfortunate truth that the Tories capitalise on.
I see this criticism a lot here but don’t know what it means.
If you really honestly don't understand the meaning of that phrase, you have no business commenting on a political thread TBH.
I presume the massive jump in members under gramps was because people wanted the opportunity to vote for a leader with any chance of winning a GE at the earliest opportunity. I know that’s why I joined.
'Ideology' is to see the world from a particular perspective, everybody has one. Therefore it is a nonsense to talk about someone being 'ideological' (presumably as opposed to 'scientific') or 'ideological purity' as though ideologies came in a pure form. The challenge is which ideology bests understands the here and now. A full and comprehensive understanding of society can only come from the standpoint of the people exploited by it not the people justifying exploitation. So an ideology based on social class gives the most objective view of processes and events and not much comes as a surprise.
Starmer is very keen to prove that his ideology is absolutely no threat. When he could have challenged £12bn extra on arms and argued for money to go to the hard-pressed many, he said his first priority under his new management was defence. Socialists should be up in arms.
Starmer will need to offer people something much more tangible than the current gov, he should start with social housing on a vast scale via housing associations and direct gov intervention on land acquisition this will create jobs,training etc on a vast scale - then offer those houses after a 5 year tenancy at cost + whatever, if the house is sold on within 5 years all profits back to the gov if within 10 years 50% profit back to gov. - take rent and salesprofit and build more houses, create a gov investment bank directly for small business, upgrade the Northern railway's to reasonable, take back the railway's into public ownership and run them as a service, allow private developers the opportunity to convert town/city centres into housing.
Finally invedt in renewable energy at the appropriate level not Boris chump change.
Socialists should be up in arms.
They’re too busy arguing amongst themselves.
If you really honestly don’t understand the meaning of that phrase, you have no business commenting on a political thread TBH.
Unsurprisingly you misunderstand. I understand the phrase but not why people are using it as an apparent insult. A failure of comprehension, I guess.
