Forum menu
Well John you obvious didn't bother to read my post fully, or at least chose to ignore the point I was making.
If there was a strong case to be made for humanitarian intervention in Iraq then fine, make the case. But don't lie and claim that you are going to war because of WMDs. Don't lie and claim that war isn't inevitable. Don't lie to the British people over something as serious as going to war. Take your case for humanitarian intervention to the UN, do it properly, under international war.
What is wong with that?
Unless you think your case for military intervention isn't strong enough.
(as a reason for I dunno, bad stuff about Starmer now?)
As far as I'm aware the reason that Tony Blair has come up on a thread about Starmer is because Starmer's supporters on here keep bringing him up. Apparently the only thing that matters is winning elections, nothing else matters. So they keep giving Blair as an example.
If I thought the only important thing in politics was to win elections then joining the Tory Party would seem a sensible strategy.
Winning elections is obviously extremely important, but also important are your goals.
This is a joke, not an acceptable political strategy :
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
Groucho Marx
Finally, Marx and one of my favourite lines. Being wrong is not the same as lying. Anyway, I'm leaving it there.
As far as I’m aware the reason that Tony Blair has come up on a thread about Starmer is because Starmer’s supporters on here keep bringing him up. Apparently the only thing that matters is winning elections, nothing else matters. So they keep giving Blair as an example.
He’s been used as the constant bogeyman for ‘centrism (boooooo... hiss!) by our resident lefties
If you go back a page you’ll see a list of what he achieved in his three successful elections
It would appear that none of that counts for anything because he didn’t measure up to your exacting standards of idealogical purity therefore he must be condemned as an evil Tory, along with anyone else who has a more nuanced and balanced view of Labours 13 years in power.
Those years the left castigate
Everything’s relative
13 years in power achieves a damn site more than an eternity of pious, sanctimonious, judgemental, po-faced and utterly joyless idealogical purity while a Tory administration has a free reign to do what the **** it likes
If you go back a page you’ll see a list of what he achieved in his three successful elections
If you think that not incinerating brown people is "ideological purity" then you have a very low bar.
If you think that a British Government of any other flavour would have done anything different or that if the UK. Government Hadn’t gone along with it then the outcome would have been any different then you’re living in la-la-land
I find it’s best to view things through that truism rather than some lefty cloud-cuckoo-land nonsense where the British government says no so the Bush administration calls the whole thing off and ten years later the Middle East is somehow miraculously a strong stable democracy free of genocidal dictators
Seriously... what planet do you people live on?
HELLOOOOO.... this is the real world calling! Maybe you should check in once in a while, eh?
As I’ve said repeatedly...
Deal with the world as it is, rather than as you’d like it to be.
Picture yourself being the one having to make those decisions instead of the one making a placard about it in the common room
Being wrong is not the same as lying.
No of course it isn't. But it is YOU who is calling Blair a liar when you claim that the purpose of the Iraq war was regime change. Just to remind you :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00pxg7h
And I agree with you. Blair might be a lot of things but he is certainly not some sort of half-wit. And you would need to be a deranged half-wit to commit the UK to war against a country armed with weapons of mass destruction. Why do you think the UK has never attacked a country armed with weapons of mass destruction? Because up until now they have all had impeccable human rights records?
Blair had to be absolutely certain that Iraq didn't have WMDs before attacking it. the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of British service personnel would certainly have scuppered his re-election prospects. We do understand what weapons of mass destruction actually means, don't we?
As Robin Cook said in his resignation speech before parliament the decision to attack Iraq wasn't made because Iraq was considered a threat to Britian but because it was considered extremely weak and no threat at all.
BTW you would need to be extremely gullible to believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the others in the administration who grew rich from the oil industry, had a secret humanitarian agenda for Iraq. Do you really believe that the people who made the decision to go to war gave a monkeys about the 5000 dead Kurds in halabja?
By all means bring up Tony Blair's stunning victory over John Major every time someone complains about Labour aping the Tories, but please don't attempt to re-write history.
Can any of you lot, so quick to condemn everyone, map out a credible scenario where the situation in the Middle East would be any better if ‘we’ hadn’t gone into Iraq than it is today?
Humour me with your perfect solution
Allowing genocidal dictators to carry on with their genocide, perhaps?
I’m intrigued to know how this all plays out in lefty la-la-land
Off you go...
What intrigues me to know binners, is why you haven't got a column in the Daily Mail.
Have you considered sending them some of your material?
I'm assuming to haven't got a column in the Daily Mail as you spend so much on here. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
Apparently I’m too right wing, and their guest editors, Len McClusky, ‘Degsie’Hatton and the restless spirit of Mussolini are not convinced of my commitment to the cause
Oh well...
They turned you down? Oh I'm sorry to hear that.
But hey, their loss is STW's gain. How many other forums can claim to have their very own ranting swivel-eyed hyper-bollock tabloid commentator, eh?
I agree with Binners in that you need a more realistic perspective of what you need to do to actually get into power in this country and then what you can do based on what you had to do to get power. I don't do it in such an over dramatic and Monthy Python image strewn manner though.
I stated a few pages back that I would prefer any labour government to any tory government just because I feel very sure that overall they would do things closer to what I wanted for the country.
Yes MPs are far from perfect but when an MP stands for Labour rather than Tory they are largely going to be more aligned with my thinking and wants. That is sadly the best I will get bar some uprising/revolution which in this country is never going to happen is it (again, realistic perspective)
Some joker then asked me why I believe that which I don't think is even worth an answer.
Picture yourself being the one having to make those decisions instead of the one making a placard about it in the common room
You really do have a chip on your shoulder about those with an education. It's not very edifying.
But your counterfactual perspective is interesting: we had to invade Iraq because Bush was going to anyway. Do you want to stop and have a think for a moment?
Allowing genocidal dictators to carry on with their genocide, perhaps?
Selectively and not on a moral basis most of the time.
I agree with Binners in that you need a more realistic perspective of what you need to do to actually get into power in this country and then what you can do based on what you had to do to get power. I don’t do it in such an over dramatic and Monthy Python image strewn manner though.
This is disengenous and defeatist.
You layout your plan and sell it.
Labour aren't good at selling a plan it appears (when they have one) which we probably have a consensus on here would improve the vast majority of lives in the UK.
Also, the evidence appears to be times have moved on from the Blair era so just aping them is dooming Labour to failure anyway.
Labour are a bad cover version currently.
I don’t think he’s homophobic, I doubt anyone serious thinks he’s homophobic. But the left think it’s fine to throw that insult at him. I really wonder why labour and the left self immolate at every opportunity.
I'm glad at least one person got it:
I don’t think Corbyn’s detractors seriously believe him to be anti-Semitic, but that didn’t stop the usual suspects on here.
But as the saying goes; mud sticks. Corbyn's enemies knew that by throwing enough mud, some of it would hopefully stick. I've had to explain to Israeli friends that Corbyn isn't actually the rabid anti-semite that he's portrayed in the right wing media as, far from it. But my point was that if Starmer makes such glaring mistakes, he can expect them to come back and bite him at some stage, if he incurs the wrath of Murdoch etc. Boris can be an actual racist, homophobe misogynist ****, but that's fine. It's how Blair can be an actual war criminal, but Murdoch etc like him, so that's ok. See the apologists for Blair on here, for a perfect example of how easily people's minds are shaped.
Some joker then asked me why I believe that which I don’t think is even worth an answer.
I'll forgive your rudeness, but the truth is, you can't really answer the question I put to you, is the bottom line. It's now quite apparent that the penny is starting to drop for the Starmerists; they are slowly coming to the realisation they've backed the wrong horse. It's clear Starmer isn't going to offer any kind of serious reform of our society, all the macho posturing when he was 'cleansing' the party of dissidents, resulted in little more than expelling Jewish members. Oops. And now, he's reduced to flag-shagging and bigging up British bombs, in a desperate attempt to appeal to the populism that Boris etc have sewn up. I fully expect him to get tough on the causes of crime, immigrants and benefit scroungers, next.
But I do recognise that most on here really do want to see some change, and society leaning back towards something half decent. And that all this infighting is simply an open goal for the tories. So, there has to be some kind of unity, cohesion, solidarity between people, if we're to get out of this mess at all. Trouble is, where do we even start?
You really do have a chip on your shoulder about those with an education.
Do I? Oh. So by implication, I'm uneducated, so view the towering intellects of those like yourself with envy? I wasn't aware we had to list our qualifications before commenting. Thats me told.
But your counterfactual perspective is interesting: we had to invade Iraq because Bush was going to anyway.
That's not really what I said. I said that in the grand scheme of things the UK supporting the Bush administration or not would have made zero difference to the outcome. The US was absolutely 100% committed to invading Iraq with or without the UK or anybody else. We were a handy fig leaf of little consequence.
I'm not defending the invasion of Iraq. It was an absolute catastrophe on every level, but this quaint notion that the UK not going in would have made a shred of difference is ridiculous. In fact its as delusional about Britains place in the world as even the most hardcore Brexiteer
I’m not defending the invasion of Iraq.
Ah, here comes the back-pedalling...
Do I? Oh. .
Yes, you do.
That’s not really what I said. I said that in the grand scheme of things the UK supporting the Bush administration or not would have made zero difference to the outcome.
Domestically, I believe it made quite a bit of difference. It weakened Blair considerably (just look at how many seats and votes he lost in 2005) as supporters deserted Labour for the Lib Dems, and his personal popularity tanked. I sometimes wonder what would've happened in the 2010 GE...
Yes, you do.
I don't at all, but its telling that your air of superiority now extends from the moral to cover the intellectual too.
So, to summarise: those who don't share your views are now not only greedy, selfish Tories, but they're also thick?
I don’t at all, but its telling that your air of superiority now extends from the moral to cover the intellectual too.
So, to summarise: those who don’t share your views are now not only greedy, selfish Tories, but they’re also thick?
Your faux indignation isn't very convincing.
If you don't understand class and exploitation in the process of production or just defend the status quo, it must make it a hard sell: we won't scare the horses, we're low-tax capitalists (with financial backing from major industrialists who also back the tories), we're not promising cos we can't just print money like the tories, we have a milf-friendly candidate, we don't like protesters, we support landlords like Blair, the future will be different from the past, we're chucking out the socialists and commies, the police and army do a cracking job, more money for wmd and screw the nurses.
Vote for sunshine and zephyrs in Hartlepool and we won't let you down!
Corbyn will be resurrected to explain the result.
This is disengenous and defeatist.
Rather than untrusted and defeated.
So, there has to be some kind of unity, cohesion, solidarity between people, if we’re to get out of this mess at all. Trouble is, where do we even start?
Stop calling people who don't currently vote labour uncaring, racist xenophobics, thick, Tories, etc
Might be a small but important step
Next step is to drop the suit with no tie look, it's not relatable, especially on a windswept doorstep in Hartlepool
Stop being beholden to special interest groups, the visit to the church could have been handled differently, it's doing important work in increasing vaccinations in a hesitant community, but you don't agree on their views on LBGTQi etc, you praised them for the vaccine work and discussed the difference in views and labours plans to ban conversion therapy. (Dawn Butler MP was on the visit as well) etc etc
Getting votes in the centre is a sales job, it's about brand, it's about trust, it's about confidence you aren't going to stuff it all up, it's about making people feel better about putting an X in your box than any other. If you don't have the centre you aren't in power, and if anything the centre is bigger than ever due to the reduction in areas where any random with the right colour rosette gets in
So, to summarise: those who don’t share your views are now not only greedy, selfish Tories, but they’re also thick?
You missed out racist xenophobes as well
What about imaginary anti-semites?
It's amazing that those on the left consistently fail to see how they are viewed by the majority of voters.
They like to blame Murdoch, the 'MSM' (I ****ing hate that expression) for it, but the fact of the matter is that people see their lofty, judgemental assumptions of both moral and intellectual superiority, and casual dismissal of alternative viewpoints (ie: patriotism) as absolutely repellent and really resent it. They certainly won't vote for it.
When I see Starmer acknowledging and addressing these perceptions, rather than sarcastiacly throw an accusation of 'flag-shagging' etc, I see someone who's trying to show that the labour party isn't sneering haughtily at them, which was definitely the impression given by a lot of those in the previous regime.
Whether they like it or not, the attitude of a lot of people on the left (and this thread amply illustrates it) absolutely plays into Boris and co's hands in being able to portray the labour party as 'the liberal elite' who are sneering at them from their ivory, morally superior, metropolitan towers
. It’s clear Starmer isn’t going to offer any kind of serious reform of our society
I made the point before, I'll say the same thing again. Starmer is a mainstream politician with a mainstream politician's views. If you were expecting radical reform from a middle aged ex-lawyer, then you're either woefully naïve or haven't been paying attention to what Labour are trying to do, or just looking at the wrong party. Labour put Starmer in charge as the feedback that they got from the last election from hundreds of thousands of people that might have/should have/would have voted for Labour was: "There is no way on earth I'm voting to put some-one like Corbyn in No 10"
Labour held a review of the 2019 election that basically said; We need to make up 123 seats in the next election cycle (to get a majority of one), an increase of 60 % which no party has ever done, and in a world that has tactical and swing voting as major features that play against us, so lets instead plan for the long game...Starmer is only a small part of that plan.
While that message might be a disappointing one for folk who want to see radical change, it's a more sensible one for the mainstream opposition party that has to attract votes from a broad swath of the country in order to get elected.
I’m not defending the invasion of Iraq.
Binners you should have a hard think about the way you talk about Iraq, because the way it comes across is 'it's ok, it's only dead foreigners, let bygones be bygones'. Well no, you can't dismiss a million dead people, and 20 years of war, chaos and suffering so easily. That's something that Blair and the majority of labour MPs did against the express wishes of their party and the voting public, and it lies at the heart of all labour's problems today because they still haven't taken responsibility for it.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">if we’re to get out of this mess at all. Trouble is, where do we even start?</span>
We start with the inevitable crushing defeat for the outdated principle free centrist fantasy at the next election. Then people might realise it's finally dead and we can crack on with some modern solutions which actually try to solve some of the problems instead of papering over the cracks. By then hopefully people will look to the trillions being spent in the US and ask why that's not happening here?
By then hopefully people will look to the trillions being spent in the US and ask why that’s not happening here?
Because we elect another Conservative government? And another, and another. But still, if that proves that you right about "centrism", who cares, huh?
If you were expecting radical reform from a middle aged ex-lawyer, then you’re either woefully naïve or haven’t been paying attention to what Labour are trying to do
Or you were just believing the promises he made in his leadership campaign. I'll admit to being naive though, and won't be fooled again. Most people on the left would forgive a bit of caution and even some flag waving. They won't forgive being lied to though. Starmer promised unity and an end to factional infighting, then went to war against the people who voted him in. Strange that he's not that popular.
Starmer promised unity and an end to factional infighting
He can't do that alone. It's also now looking like a naive aspiration.
There is absolutely no proof of that.
Apart from the fact that when the Chilcot Inquiry was finally published, Cameron in parliament refused to issue an apology for the war, refused to say whether he thought the war was a mistake, and refused calls to apologise for the Conservative party's role in lending it's support for the run-up to the war. So I think we can assume that the Conservative party were briefed about the intelligence, and supported it. I'd say the odds suggest that had we had a Conservative govt at the time, we still would've ended up where we are today.
If you were expecting radical reform from a middle aged ex-lawyer, then you’re either woefully naïve or haven’t been paying attention to what Labour are trying to do, or just looking at the wrong party.
I'm not expecting Sir Keith do do anything he's not told to do. And that's the problem. There simply isn't any genuine leadership talent in the entire senior party. Not someone who can actually lead the country towards something better, anyway. Which is why you've got to get rid of the neoliberals and right wingers. Because they will only hold the party back from being anywhere near progressive. Starmer isn't going to be able to do that. Corbyn attempted to keep the peace, by not sacking people like Mann, Hodge and Astin, but in my opinion,that was a big mistake. Hodge knows full well Corbyn isn't actually an antisemite; that incident was staged for publicity purposes. She probably hates Corbyn because he campaigned against South African Apartheid, which as I've already mentioned, her family profited from (one of the reasons why she enjoys such privilege). You can't have people like her in a modern, progressive Labour party that claims to represent all. And whilst the status quo continues, Labour are irrelevant.
Binners you should have a hard think about the way you talk about Iraq, because the way it comes across is ‘it’s ok, it’s only dead foreigners, let bygones be bygones’.
I don't know how you've extrapolated that from my description of it:
'It was an absolute catastrophe on every level'
?
And it was. An absolute cluster-**** right from day one, that has caused an entire region to unravel and descend into murderous chaos. How could anyone defend that? I'm certainly not!
My assertion is that it was a disaster made in Washington (aren't they all?) and the UK was an irrelevance and simply along for the ride as a tiny fig-leaf to chaotic and overwhelming American aggression.
What did UK involvement actually amount to?
Should we have gone along with it? Of course not!
Would it have made any difference if we hadn't? Of course not!
You can’t have people like her in a modern, progressive Labour party that claims to represent all
So you want a party that represents everyone, but excludes some people? How does that work then?
When I see Starmer acknowledging and addressing these perceptions, rather than sarcastiacly throw an accusation of ‘flag-shagging’ etc, I see someone who’s trying to show that the labour party isn’t sneering haughtily at them, which was definitely the impression given by a lot of those in the previous regime.
Then you see something many of us don't. Maybe you're only seeing what you want to see?
Labour put Starmer in charge as the feedback that they got from the last election from hundreds of thousands of people that might have/should have/would have voted for Labour was: “There is no way on earth I’m voting to put some-one like Corbyn in No 10”
If the polls are to be believed, they are now saying the same thing about Starmer.
If the polls are to be believed, they are now saying the same thing about Starmer.
Yep, and I think @bridges' point about the opposition front bench is a valid one; Who are they, what do they stand for? They're almost invisible. And without deflecting too much, I doubt any opposition leader could get any traction in the shit-storm we currently find ourselves in. If you agree with the Govt's actions, who cares? and if you oppose, you run the risk of being labeled as opportunistic, or playing politics at the time of a crisis. And for all his faults; Johnson has a sound tactic for dealing with Starmer: Ignore him. It's working.
So you want a party that represents everyone, but excludes some people? How does that work then?
Have a think about the recent Black Lives Matter protests, and events in the US etc. Do you really think somebody who still enjoys great privilege as the result of something as abhorrent as racial apartheid, should be in a party that claims to be 'inclusive'? Should the police recruit people who are openly members of neo-nazi groups?
Yep, and I think @bridges’ point about the opposition front bench is a valid one; Who are they, what do they stand for? They’re almost invisible. And without deflecting too much, I doubt any opposition leader could get any traction in the shit-storm we currently find ourselves in. If you agree with the Govt’s actions, who cares? and if you oppose, you run the risk of being labeled as opportunistic, or playing politics at the time of a crisis. And for all his faults; Johnson has a sound tactic for dealing with Starmer: Ignore him. It’s working.
I'd love to know what they stand for! Whilst I agree that it's difficult to get traction, a clear vision from Starmer could've enthused the membership, which is critical for a party that relies on its ground game to get the vote out. At the moment, there's a lot of people - who lent their votes to Starmer - feeling like they've been used.
What did UK involvement actually amount to?
179 dead british soldiers for a start. 56 dead Londoners at 7/7. 23 dead kids at the Manchester Arena. Some direct, some indirect, but all a result of a british foreign policy which allied us with a force which is seen as genocidal in the Islamic world, and largely inspired by what happened in Iraq.
Would it have made any difference if we hadn’t? Of course not!
It's a fact that 179 service personnel would still be alive right now. It's also highly likely that the terrorist atrocities mentioned above wouldn't have happened, but admittedly that's debatable. Saying 'it would have happened anyway' is pretty idiotic. What matters is what we did, not what might have happened if we didn't. Blair and his supporters made a decision against the protests of almost everyone else, and those decisions had horrific consequences. Should we face up to that and seek justice or just ignore it because it's uncomfortable?
Can we have an Iraq thread?
Can we have an Iraq thread?
There's no need, we just need binners to stop bringing it up again and again. For as long as he does, some of us will feel obliged to respond rather than allow it to go unchallenged.
Do you really think somebody who still enjoys great privilege as the result of something as abhorrent as racial apartheid, should be in a party that claims to be ‘inclusive’?
Do I think Hodge's profiteering from Stemcor's involvement with the SA govt in the 70's and 80's was wrong? Absolutely. Do I think that chucking her out of a party for events she had little to do with over 40 years ago will solve anything wrong in the party now? No, I don't think it will.
Perhaps chucking her out of the party will make some folk who felt that her attacks on Corbyn were wrong, happy, but I doubt it'll solve anything.
a clear vision from Starmer could’ve enthused the membership
Yes agreed. There is lots of wordy verbiage from him on the economy and routes to recovery out of Covid, and it's all very worthy, but you're right It's not been distilled down to anything approaching "Starmer-ist" or something people can pin down to a set of beliefs. It's disappointing.
He needs some 3 word slogans. Get to 4 words or above and you have lost 80% of the voters.
The Labour party have just been trounced by the tory party, they need to learn from that and steal from it. Having high integrity or left wings ideals is not going to cut it.
Can you imagine the furore if we buy Israeli drones, the left will have a seizure
Really? Care to back this up with evidence rather than blanket claims. Bonus points if you actually manage to deal with the minor detail there have already been some purchases. Its almost like you are projecting your simplistic prejudices onto a rather large and diverse group of people.
As for getting Brits to manufacture American technology, fine by me.
So you want to pay well over the odds for something we could have brought off the shelf? Although at least for the Apaches we did get them airborne in a reasonable timeframe unlike the SF chinooks.
What is the value add you are seeing here?
Oh wow. Supposedly the 'hard left' are cosying up to the conservatives by having a poll done. These centrists are a bit fragile aren't they, imagine what they'd say if people in their own party called them racists, anti-semites and terrorist sympathisers?
These centrists are a bit fragile aren’t they,
I guess its one of those things they are borrowing from the tories. Projecting all their failings onto others.
Or... there really are some on the Left seeking to damage the Labour leader by all means possible. Whether he's a "centrist" or not. Either way, we can all settle in for a few decades of Tory rule, while a series of Labour leaders get undermined by people who'd rather have Conservative governments than have their "enemies" lead the Labour party. The public won't vote for this mess, and I see no way to fix it really. Labour needs to be more than one party, but FPTP success is all about unifying disparate groups to vote for one party... as Johnson understands and looks likely to reap the benefit of, as the UKIP/Brexit/Conservative supporters all back his candidate, and likely new MP.
Do I think Hodge’s profiteering from Stemcor’s involvement with the SA govt in the 70’s and 80’s was wrong? Absolutely. Do I think that chucking her out of a party for events she had little to do with over 40 years ago will solve anything wrong in the party now? No, I don’t think it will.
Perhaps chucking her out of the party will make some folk who felt that her attacks on Corbyn were wrong, happy, but I doubt it’ll solve anything.
Problem is (and it's a pretty big one), Hodge owes her wealth and political influence purely down to such wrongness. She's still happy to benefit from her familial ties to that same company, through the dividends from shares she owns. Accusing others of racism is a bit rich, when you've profited from actual racism yourself. And that's before we even get to her inaction on sex abuse, when she was leader of Islington council. In short; she is not a fit and proper person to hold any kind of position in politics, much less be anywhere near power (as she was when a member of Blair's government, happily voting to bomb the shit out of brown people). You see? Hodge is part of the problem with Labour, and people like that cannot be members of a party that claims to stand against racism, inequality and injustice.
Or… there really are some on the Left seeking to damage the Labour leader by all means possible.
By the evil deed of, checks notes, publishing a survey? My god how evil. Best they get purged from the party as traitors to the glorious leader.
Perhaps the "source" should be wondering why the poll went the way it did rather than stoking up internal battles?
Really? Care to back this up with evidence rather than blanket claims. Bonus points if you actually manage to deal with the minor detail there have already been some purchases. Its almost like you are projecting your simplistic prejudices onto a rather large and diverse group of people.
Of course the left would have seizure on this, UK buying and using Israeli technology developed in part to use on Palestinians. They already campaign to boycott peaceful products, how would they react to the UK using the technology? You'd have labour constituency motions to scrap them the moment they came into power the week after the announcement to procure.
So you want to pay well over the odds for something we could have brought off the shelf? Although at least for the Apaches we did get them airborne in a reasonable timeframe unlike the SF chinooks.
What is the value add you are seeing here?
As I understand it the UK longbow variant is different in its capabilities in terms of ISTAR
These aren't"off the shelf" products they are made to order together with the supporting kit to keep them airborne
I personally would like to have the economic multiplier of production in the UK and the ability to keep them in the air from a UK manufacturing base. These aren't cans of beans, they are complex systems which require a lot of support.
As the UK (much to the lefts disgust) is a well respected arms exporter the policy might not be a stupid as you state
In short; she is not a fit and proper person to hold any kind of position in politics
Again, she benefitted for something tat she no direct control over, some 30-40 years ago. Likewise How many politicians in places like Wakefield, Rochdale and so on failed to deal with pedophile rings properly, at the very least she's apologised (multiple times) and given one of the victims £30,000.
There are many who would accuse Corbyn of similar unfitness; inviting IRA members to house of Commons, actual terrorists and their supporters, just 5 weeks after an IRA bombing that had killed 5 people, only to have Gerry Adams decline to save everyone's embarrassment.
But then politics isn't a knitting circle is it? My sense is that you feel Hodge should be expelled from the party for some sort of revenge for how she spoke about Corbyn. If I were Starmer looking at this, I'd rather have Hodge in the tent shouting out than the opposite.
As the UK (much to the lefts disgust) is a well respected arms exporter
"Respected" in what sense?
In that the stuff the UK makes is really, really good at killing people
Stop talking Britain down, you communist!
at the very least she’s apologised (multiple times) and given one of the victims £30,000.
Oh that's alright then. An incredibly wealthy woman, giving away what amounts to less than half her annual commons salary (which is a fraction of her annual income), and less than the dividends she was receiving from her stake in a company that profited from racist apartheid. Absolves her of all sins. Obviously.
There are many who would accuse Corbyn of similar unfitness
Oh I'm sure there are. Your own misinformed post demonstrates that perfectly.
If I were Starmer looking at this, I’d rather have Hodge in the tent shouting out than the opposite.
You should let the BNP know. They might send you some flowers.
You should let the BNP know. They might send you some flowers.
haha, what a card you are, how the winter nights must fly by, what was that people were saying about how to attract people to the Labour Party?
Oh yeah, insult them, that’ll work every time .
Of course the left would have seizure on this
No I am interested in actual facts rather than your speculation. That you struggle to distinguish between Labour and the left tends to indicate your speculation is going to be ill informed. I notice you failed to get the bonus points for dealing with the fact the UK already purchases varied specialist military equipment from Israel.
As I understand it the UK longbow variant is different in its capabilities in terms of ISTAR
Which is a case for a different outfitting and not building them from scratch at massive cost.
These aren’t cans of beans, they are complex systems which require a lot of support.
Thank you for explaining it to me in simple terms. Your expertise in the subject is greatly appreciated. Could you please continue sharing your expert knowledge in terms of maybe dry dog food with regards to what actually happened with Westland despite the massive amounts of cash thrown their way?
As the UK (much to the lefts disgust) is a well respected arms exporter the policy might not be a stupid as you state
If you cast your mind back you might note I asked what was the end goal and gave multiple scenarios? In terms of being well respected I am not quite so sure of that. There is some good gear being produced (AI for example) but there is also a ton of absolute shite which only gets sold thanks to massive bribes or only has the UK as a user. It is those which the value add is extremely unclear.
Oh, you missed the reference. Never mind.
Really want him to succeed. I haven't voted for quite a while now based on the fact i feel like its like choosing from eating different flavors of turd.
Anyhow, i must say i was very disappointed in his advertorial yesterday evening blowing smoke up the NHS arse. I dont want someone stood in front of a tv screen, talking all sincere about the good work the nurses are doing. We had the public clapping the NHS for weeks and then having street parties to celebrate for gods sake. How his mother was a nurse and his wife works in the NHS. How he values them and will give them everything they deserve. This is the kind of bullshit that gave us £250m per week if we vote for Brexit.
I want to hear who is getting taxed more and how they are going to balance books based on brexit, covid and all the austerity we have had. False promises with no way of backing them up just makes him a liar. Looks like i am tearing up another voting slip 🙁
how they are going to balance books based on brexit, covid and all the austerity we have had
Serious question, why do you want to balance the books?
The problem with the shit sandwich analogy is that you still get one of the options even if you don’t choose one.
Or… there really are some on the Left seeking to damage the Labour leader by all means possible.
Seriously, commissioning a survation poll is now evidence of the left's treachery?
Rather than whining because the nasty poll didn't say nice things why not use it as motivation to actually pull your bloody finger out and stop being so wet. Pathetic.
It’s not just a poll. It’s constant attacks on the party leader on the eve of elections. It’s sitting Labour councillors rallying behind a joke party designed purely to damage the Labour Party and with a ‘till recently Labour MP as its candidate. The thing is, when Starmer goes, the next leader gets all this as well, no matter where they sit in the political spectrum of the party. Labour will never unite, will it.
It’s not just a poll. It’s constant attacks on the party leader on the eve of elections.
Can you give examples of some of these other attacks? Stating that he isnt exactly making an impact isnt really an attack its a statement of fact.
Are you wanting nothing but praise for the glorious leader? Seems a bit, well, cultish really.
Are you wanting nothing but praise for the glorious leader?
Assuming you read what I post here, you’ll know otherwise.
Seriously, commissioning a survation poll is now evidence of the left’s treachery?
Yeah - ridiculous.
The poll was commissioned to test the popularity of things that are hugely relevant to the electorate, and particularly how out of touch Labour are getting towards the working class.
Something that the Tories will run away with if unchecked.
Labour will not get anywhere without the Left. This is not going into heads of certain people.
It’s constant attacks on the party leader on the eve of elections
I'm not seeing that, what are these constant attacks?
I’m not seeing that, what are these constant attacks?
Really?!? Lucky you.
Labour will not get anywhere without the Left.
I agree 100%
Keep that thought process unwinding…
I want to hear who is getting taxed more and how they are going to balance books
Balanced books are a nonsense from a governmental point of view. Government spends into the economy the private sector thrives.
Government balances the books the economy contracts as money is taken out of circulation. (Providing inflation is not too high. We're still at 0.7%. Target of 2%)
The issue is the Tories will get away with spending but Labour will be slammed. This is why the narrative should be a balanced economy not balanced books. (I.e full employment, Job, guarantee, massive infrastructure spending etc).
binners
Member
your air of superiority
Heal thyself!
Libya was just as much a **** up as Iraq but Cameron doesn't get as much pelters for that - nor Obama.
The left is self destructive and overly self critical.
I'm not sticking up for Blair, that list of achievements bar a few is bolx and a list that the Tories could easily write about their time in power.
Saying that I'd take Starmer over the Tories all day. I feel like leaving the country because of the corrupt, immoral shit show running the country.
BUT I think Starmer won't get anywhere by trying to out centre them, he needs to think out of the box a bit.
The left is self destructive and overly self critical.
Bollocks. The left didn’t call their centrist colleagues racists and terrorist sympathisers. The left never worked behind the scenes to lose an election. The left never declared that they wouldn’t support a labour govt if elected. The ‘left’ are not the problem.
This thread is just chewing the cud really. I can't see what the Labour party can do until the covid situation recedes, damned if they do, damned if they don't sort of thing.
The political battle is going to be fought on the funeral pyre of Brexit. As much as it might be a disappointment to those on the left of the party, the best hope for Labour will be to be uber centralist. There's going to be an enormous constituency of disgruntled business persons who, if engaged with will lend enormous credibility to the labour party and go some way towards flipping the script with regards percieved fiscal responsibility.
The left's best hope is to shut up for the meantime and let the Labour party fight on a centrist platform and hope that he delivers something more progressive once and if he gets into office. Kind of like what's just happened in America.
Trump wasn't defeated by the progressive's, he was defeated by the ultimate centrist. Now he is in the White House hes delivering an agende more in line with AOC and the like. Politics has never been about delivering on a manifesto, It has always been about getting into office then doing what you want.
Although I do wish Starmer would take a leaf out of Biden's book and hide in his basement. Every time I see him in front of the camera he manages to make thinks worse. I think he would be more effective as an invisible man meme, sometimes you say it beat when you say nothing at all. After all, hiding in a fridge never hurt Boris did it.
This thread is just chewing the cud really. I can’t see what the Labour party can do until the covid situation recedes, damned if they do, damned if they don’t sort of thing.
100% this
Johnson & Starmer are passengers at this point
Johnsons lies over NI are biting him in the arse
And this was the right thing for Starmer to say
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1380126020875980800?s=19
He needs to hammer that home
Bollocks. The left didn’t call their centrist colleagues racists and terrorist sympathisers. The left never worked behind the scenes to lose an election. The left never declared that they wouldn’t support a labour govt if elected. The ‘left’ are not the problem.
The left as in left of the Tories.
Politics has never been about delivering on a manifesto, It has always been about getting into office then doing what you want.
Exactly, a point that seems to be missed by the perfections in this thread.
- Do whatever you need to to get into power, do whatever you want once in power.
That is what the tories have done forever. Is anyone checking off against what they have delivered against their manifesto and then basing their vote on what % of stuff was achieved, No they haven't.