Forum menu
It's highly relevant to Starmer's credibility for many people and you aren't in charge of this thread, so er no...
It's not that Israel is a massive issue, but all of the above severely calls into question his integrity.
Subjects that are at the very forefront of absolutely everyones mind, pretty much all the time:
1. Iraq
2. Israel
Thats it. Everything else is irrelevant and merely serves to distract us all from these critical issues. Thats what they want, you see. They probably started a pandemic as a smokescreen
TBF Kelvin Starmer has made his support for Israel something of a central feature of his leadership.
Yes binners we know your interest in politics only extends as far as the affordability of a Greggs. Well done you.
support for Israel
Much like my support for Britain, or the USA, while also being strongly apposed to many of the actions our and their governments take. If you want a political leader to say that Israel shouldn't exist, you're unlikely to be satisfied any time soon (I hope).
Israel shouldn't exist as a state that systematically discriminates against certain ethnic groups. Why is it so hard/wrong to say that?
Israel shouldn’t exist as a state that systematically discriminates against certain ethnic groups.
Israel should be allowed to exist as state. Its government and institutions shouldn't discriminate against certain ethnic groups. The government and "settlers" shouldn't use national defence as a cover for expanding into new territory either.
HRW have also asked the ICC to investigate and prosecute those "Credibly implicated" and called for travel bans and asset freezing on officials responsible. IFAIK They haven't included Starmer in that.
Some of you need to go watch the Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi video dazh posted again if you think none of this matters.
if you think none of this matters
Who says that none of this matters? It's just spamming up this thread.
I'm bored of the Tories running the country, doing whatever they like, with whoever they like, wherever they like, while the Labour leader is supposed to be busy undoing a war they played no role in, and working night and day to remove a right wing racist government 3000 miles away. Just because Corbyn has been leader, has not transformed the Labour Party into the Stop the War Coalition, and nor should it be expected to have the same focus.
working night and day to remove a right wing racist government 3000 miles away.
Yes cos that's what I'm saying isn't it. 🙄
And it's really getting in the way of you guys going round and round in circles saying the same stuff ad infinitum. My sincerest apologies.
Meh what do I care, my MP is Lib Dem and alright, there's precisely zero chance of Labour getting in here, and Starmer will never be PM anyway.
Lucky you. I'd vote for that Lib Dem MP if I lived there as well. Do they have to constantly justify the existence of the state of Israel?
They handed Labour their biggest electoral defeat ever.
I can't believe that on a forum in which people pride themselves on being so well-informed, compared to the thick ill-informed electorate, this sort of shit is still being trotted out unchallenged.
Although I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise - this place is full of contradictions.
In the 2019 general election Labour share of the vote was 32.1%, which was higher than Labour achieved under Ed Miliband in 2015 - 30.4%.
And higher than Labour achieved under under Gordon Brown in 2010 - 29.0%
Also higher than Labour achieved in the 1987 general election under Neil Kinnock.
And higher than Labour achieved in the 1983 general election under Michael Foot.
Yes the present Tory majority is very high at 80, but that does not necessarily reflect a low Labour share of the vote. It is just how the arithmetic of FPTP voting system happened to work out.
If the LibDem vote had not collapsed in recent years then there is no way the Tory majority would be 80 today. I can lay very serious blame onto Corbyn and his failings, but Nick Clegg screwing the LibDems with his "centrist politics" isn't one of them.
Plus the Tory majority in 1983 was almost double what it is today, if we are going to simply talk about Tory majority.
In the case of the 1983 general election the huge Tory majority did not reflect the popularity of the Tory vote as the Tory vote actually fell by almost almost three-quarters of a million, it was caused by a split Labour-Liberal/SDP vote.
Parliamentary majorities in our FPTP system do not necessarily reflect the popularity of political parties, the share of the vote pretty much does so though.
Furthermore iirc in the general election of 2017 Labour's share of the vote increased more than any other time since the 1945 Labour landslide (and the Tories lost their majority, if we care about majorities) how come that fact never comes into the analysis of Labour's electoral performance?
Let me guess........ because it doesn't fit into the anti-Corbyn narrative?
There’s no prize for vote share, sadly. Seat count is all that really matters when it comes to “defeats” or “victory” in an UK general election, and Johnson is looking unstoppable with the 2019 Labour defeat. The LibDems and Greens have paid the price of this lack of proportionality for a while now. Labour are once again. Handsomely winning city seats, no matter how big the majorities in those seats, will never be enough for Labour to be in government.
The Tories have 165 more MPs than Labour. One hundred and sixty five. There are more than 1.8 Conservative MPs for each Labour MP. I’d like to think that’s a low point that could only be improved on… a come back isn’t looking likely so far though.
There’s no prize for vote share, sadly
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you ignore it completely. What 2017 proved was that a new approach centred around radical transformative policies could work. All it needed was a bit of tweaking, a new front man/woman, and the whole party pulling in the same direction. That's what Starmer promised in his leadership campaign, and is the main reason why people like me voted for him. That didn't suit the blairites though because it meant giving up their hopes of controlling the party, so they dumped the positives from 2017 in favour of a return to outdated centrist blairism, with the result being a party at war with itself and a return to pre-2017 polling numbers.
Dumped which positives? Which policies from the broadly very popular 2017 manifesto has been dumped? Distancing themselves from the leader of the time seems to be part of the plan, but that’s because he was a deterrent for voter after voter after voter.
I agree that the 2017 manifesto was well supported by the public… and “tweaking” it was the correct next step… but that isn’t what happened in 2019… Labour went from unpopular leader but popular policies, to be being derided by even reasonable not at all right wing or Brexity voters for their policies as well as their leader. Yes, Brexit was piled on top of that as well, making it very hard to unpick what happened… but still, new leadership and building on 2017 polices is the way forward… 2019 is a lesson in what not to do is so many ways. Anyone persuaded that the it wasn’t a “big loss”, or that the new policies (and not just the one about our relationship with the EU) weren’t part of the reason for that loss, are grasping at straws.
2019 is a lesson in what not to do is so many ways
Well calling your own party leader a racist probably wasn't the best strategy. Didn't seem to stop most labour MPs though.
Ditto the disastrous brexit policy. Now remind me who thought of that one?
but that’s because he was a deterrent for voter after voter after voter.
He didn't seem to be that unpopular in 2017. Quite the opposite in fact, I have vivid memories of the crowds he was attracting. And then the labour right and their tory collaborators exploded the anti-semitism landmine, and now we are where we are.
People were not turned away from him because he was a racist, they were turned away from him because he appeared useless.
He was simply not a good leader of a party. The press didn't help but he made it very easy for them didn't he. I was happy when he first became leader but within 6 months I knew it was time for him to move on.
People were not turned away from him because he was a racist
Oh give over. It's a simple fact the AS issue was the main issue that cut through. One that was entirely engineered by the rightwingers in the PLP with the gleeful help of the tory press. I agree though he did appear useless trying to promote a ridiculous brexit policy designed by you know who.
He was simply not a good leader of a party.
Given the sort of scum (yes I use that word deliberately) he was tasked with leading in the PLP I see that as a positive to be honest. I'd much rather have a labour leader who listens to people at the grassroots and is interested in the needs of the public than someone who spends all his time managing and massaging the inflated egos and entitlements of the average labour MP.
All it needed was a bit of tweaking, a new front man/woman, and the whole party pulling in the same direction. That’s what Starmer promised in his leadership campaign, and is the main reason why people like me voted for him. That didn’t suit the blairites though because it meant giving up their hopes of controlling the party, so they dumped the positives from 2017 in favour of a return to outdated centrist blairism, with the result being a party at war with itself and a return to pre-2017 polling numbers.
So much this. ^^^^
It is astonishing that the guy who was pushing for a second referendum against the cries of worried northern Labour MPs is now supposed to be the man to return the red wall to Labour and, well, 'let's just forget about the whole second referendum thing eh.
But hey I'm not a racist, well, not an anti-Semite anyway' (other types of racism seem to be fine).
Seat count is all that really matters when it comes to “defeats” or “victory” in an UK general election, and Johnson is looking unstoppable with the 2019 Labour defeat.
Current Tory position is pretty much the same as Labour had in 2005. In 2019, Labour actually took a higher vote share than the Tories managed in 2005. So current electoral arithmetic does not make Labour's position impossible, though its leadership may well do.
Ditto the disastrous brexit policy. Now remind me who thought of that one?
Starmer may have come up with the idea and supported it. But the dithering a blatant lack of support of it from Corbyn made it even more obvious he was keen for Brexit. Had he got behind a 2nd ref right from the start and had a credible Brexit plan instead of red unicorn version people would have held there nose and voted for him. Corbyn should have stood down after 2017. Too many voters associate him with the champagne socialist of the 70's and would never vote for him.
I keep tabs on blogger Another Angry Voice and if he and his supporters in the comments are taken as a majority voice of the left there is no way we are ever getting away from more Tory majorities. They seam pleased with that too. The attitude seems to be give us all that we want or we shall actively help the polar opposite of happening. The country needs a gradual shift back to the left. The more that people realise that left wing policies help them the better it becomes. As for now, we are stuck with a showers of bellends.
Labour were sinking like a stone before that awful policy, it replaced a worse one. The idea that Starmer formed the policy in a vacuum, rather than it being an awful fudge to try and hold together warring factions, is laughable. Labour’s policy on Brexit appealed to no one, in an attempt to not have anyone break ranks. It was a failure… but what was the alternative? The leader and his team wanted us out of the EU, the membership wanted the public to have another vote… guiding any policy through that hole was a big ask… one that would engage the public an even bigger one. The idea that a “we leave come what may” policy would have saved Labour from defeat is still as laughable now as it was then.
champagne socialist of the 70’s
??
I think you've just imagined that.
But the dithering a blatant lack of support of it from Corbyn made it even more obvious he was keen for Brexit
Numerous northern Labour MPs were telling him this pro second referendum policy was going down like a lead balloon, so he should just have ignored them and magically somehow everything would have been ok. 🤔
And I'm sure no one would have accused him of being part of a liberal metropolitan elite who ignore the working class in the north, etc
I, depressingly, spent a good few months on building sites before the 2019 election. A lot of folk were planning on voting Tory, against their own interests, “because of Corbyn. I can honestly say I never heard anti-semitism mentioned when people were saying why they couldn’t vote for Corbyn. A whole load of other bullshit reasons, but not anti-semitism. I’d say the only time I saw anti-semitism mentioned was when the usual stalkers of my MP’s Facebook posts replied mentioning it. Was it an issue? Yes. Is it a “simple fact” that it was the main issue? Well, it’s a “simple fact” that those who like to explain everything with a “simple fact” should not really be listened to.
He was seen as someone whose entire career was as a political snarker, who had never actually done or achieved a single thing in his life. A professional opposition politician of the left. Not someone who could run things. The Labour Party should have pulled together to try and create the illusion that he could at least run the party, and many MPs did exactly that, including Starmer and plenty of the current front bench… but all the stories of him cutting off MPs rather than talking to them sowed the seeds of the exact opposite happening, sadly.
Are you aware of who the current very popular prime minister is?
Oh give over. It’s a simple fact the AS issue was the main issue that cut through.
It really wasn't. Same as deadlydarcy, when people chose not to vote Labour the AS issue was nothing to do with it. Go and watch what people were saying in all the focus groups that Channel 4 ran and it never got mentioned.
Yes binners we know your interest in politics only extends as far as the affordability of a Greggs. Well done you
I think you'll find the affordability of a Gregg's is a lot closer to the average working class voters issues. Health, low pay, lack of opportunities, high streets, etc than Israel and Iraq.
Both sets of issues are important, one set is more relevant to the lives of those Labour need to vote for them
It really wasn’t.
Fine, lets for arguments sake pretend AS wasn't an issue. That leaves the brexit policy, designed by you know who. Ultimately what it all came down to was the cut through of all the attack lines which failed in 2017 and that happened largely because his own MPs spent two years calling him a racist and various other things. AS opened the floodgates, and it achieved exactly what the labour right - including Starmer - wanted, which was a large labour defeat.
Oh, give over, Starmer would have been a shoe in for a major secretary of state position, and the chance to make real change... he'd much rather be doing that now then watching the current government make things worse. Which alternative "Brexit policy" would have worked better for Labour, and got past the Leader, and kept the membership on side?
champagne socialist of the 70’s
??
I think you’ve just imagined that.
I really haven't. This was a quoted directly from Tory voting relatives. They feared Corbyn and would never vote for him.
'He appeared useless' plus he had a limp handshake. He apologised to all the wrong people and naively failed to realise they would continue to attack him whatever. And they did. As Ernie pointed out the psephology doesn't support the blame Corbyn for Hartlepool claim. Despite not squaring up and fighting his corner he still served the LP well and subsequent events have helped improve people's understanding of parliamentary politics, politicians and the people who pay for them.
NB. Didn't the LP used to have Barbara Follett (?) to advise on sartorial appropriateness and panache?
but all the stories of him cutting off MPs rather than talking to them sowed the seeds of the exact opposite happening
So where did these stories originate from? Just possibly from some MPs who had zero interest in working with him perhaps and didnt really like this left wing labour party idea and wanted to get it back to the good old days.
The female MPs I was following on Twitter at the time. Months of closed door and no calls or messages being returned, before they broke cover and complained about it publicly. They all seemed left wing to me, but then I'm not one of those that thinks that Labour MPs are secret Conservatives simply after power for their own sakes... and for some reason choosing to seek it with a red rosette rather than a blue one.
Fine, lets for arguments sake pretend AS wasn’t an issue. That leaves the brexit policy,
Nope, it leaves lots of things besides Brexit.
Brexit was a particular struggle for Corbyn as he was a Brexiter who couldn't publicly admit it so just appeared all other the place but there were many other things he struggled with.
Simply put, he just wasn't a good leader in the view of the voters and that is all that ultimately matters if you want to get elected. Many of us knew that soon into his leadership but he just seemed to ignore it or was just in a bubble away from reality which you must be very familiar with 🙂
Starmer is also not cutting it as a good leader so should also go. No point staying for another 4 years and just having what we already know confirmed in an election.
I’m torn between not caring about your obsession with Israeli in this thread… and wanting scream at you for being such a useful example of the UK Left’s problems… but carry on.
So; you think that people who care about the lives of others, who suffer at the hands of a racist, fascistic regime, are a 'problem'? No; Starmer expressing support for such a regime, is a problem. Starmer being told what to do by a lobbying organisation which acts in the interests of that racist regime, is a problem. Because you can't claim to be anti-racist etc, if you support a racist regime. Fact is; Starmer isn't an anti-racist anyway. He's never actively done anything to actually help combat racism, other than express a few carefully scripted platitudes. Unlike his predecessor. So Starmer being at the head of a party which professes to stand against racism, just doesn't work. As Director of Public Prosecutions during the 2011 riots, Starmer pushed a policy of fast-tracking prosecutions against those arrested, which impacted disproportionately against people of colour. It's important to note that many of the convictions that resulted, were either overturned or had sentences reduced on appeal. Starmer isn't someone who will stand up for minorities. I'm struggling to think of who he actually would stand up for, to be honest; he needed his bodyguard to manhandle that pub landlord away from him. He just doesn't possess any real courage or guts; he's a weak Yes man who will do exactly as he's told to, by his puppeteers. And I know that's hard for the Starmerists to take, but it's just the truth, sadly. Your Lord and Saviour has no balls.
he just wasn’t a good leader
Define 'good leader'.
Define ‘good leader’.
Look at how Corbyn handled stuff, the opposite of that.
Or more seriously, being able to recognise that what you are doing is not working (stance on Brexit, handling of AS, media presence etc,.) and do something about it.
Starmer is also not cutting it as a good leader so should also go. No point staying for another 4 years and just having what we already know confirmed in an election.
Ideally he should go a year out from the general election, to give the new leader a chance to time it right... but it won't happen. He won't step aside. The party doesn't push people aside. Run offs and handovers take an age in the Labour party, it is not flexible enough. The fear that a leadership contest could turn into a huge inwards looking party "debate" just when the party needs to be focussing outwards will be hard to see past. There's also the issue that Johnson's team could, and would, change the timing of an election if Labour tried that.
Starmer being told what to do by a lobbying organisation which acts in the interests of that racist regime, is a problem.
Advice comes from all quarters. "Being told what to do" is lovely loaded language.
And I know that’s hard for the Starmerists to take, but it’s just the truth, sadly. Your Lord and Saviour has no balls.
There are no "Starmerists" in this thread.
There are no “Starmerists” in this thread.
They’re everywhere! You just can’t see them.
Look at how Corbyn handled stuff, the opposite of that.
Increased party membership to its highest ever levels, making Labour the largest political party in Europe. Managed to engage many younger people with politics and activism. Helped shift the political focus onto corruption and greed amongst elites. Helped expose most of the UK media being under the control of said elites. Helped expose the fact we don't really have real democracy. And shown that what the UK needs is a viable left wing alternative to right wing politics.
What's Starmer done so far? Oh...
There are no “Starmerists” in this thread.
Yes, the ship is sinking. But where's dry land? Swim!
And shown that what the UK needs is a viable left wing alternative to right wing politics.
Absolutely. The electorate really went for it.
The electorate did what they were told to. That doesn't mean we don't need an alternative. You can lead a horse to water...
But seriously; what's Starmer done so far? Anybody?
Ideally he should go a year out from the general election
If he's not the right leader he needs to go now.
Increased party membership to its highest ever levels, making Labour the largest political party in Europe. Managed to engage many younger people with politics and activism. Helped shift the political focus onto corruption and greed amongst elites. Helped expose most of the UK media being under the control of said elites. Helped expose the fact we don’t really have real democracy. And shown that what the UK needs is a viable left wing alternative to right wing politics.
And where has any of that got any of us? Where has it got the labour party?
A huge membership? The party in power, with a huge majority, has a membership that constitutes a couple of thousand senile old racists in retirement homes on the South Coast.
All that stuff may play well on Twitter but the reality is that we're presently under the rule of a completely corrupt Tory regime with a whopping great majority meaning it can do pretty much what the hell it likes. Thats where all that got us.
The irony of it being that the main thing that's done - taking us out of the EU - is something that Jeremy Corbyn would have loved to have on his CV, and to be fair he can take a large dollop of the credit for.
The fact of the matter is that Starmer, or whoever else received the poisoned chalice, inherited a smouldering train wreck. The rebuilding job required to restore even a modicum of credibility is absolutely huge after the electoral car crash of Corbynism.
Do I think he can win an election? Not in the present climate, no. I'd love to believe that he could, but right now I can't see it.
His job - and its a huge one - is the same as Neil Kinnocks was. To set off down the long and torturous road to making the party electable again.
If you don't appreciate what an enormous task that is, and what an utter shambles Jezza left the party in, then you're absolutely delusional. All those things you mentioned count for pretty much nothing with the majority of the electorate, and they're the ones who ultimately make the decisions.
We'll have a more realistic idea of how far down the road Starmer has got when the local election results are in.
Increased party membership to its highest ever levels, making Labour the largest political party in Europe. Managed to engage many younger people with politics and activism. Helped shift the political focus onto corruption and greed amongst elites. Helped expose most of the UK media being under the control of said elites. Helped expose the fact we don’t really have real democracy. And shown that what the UK needs is a viable left wing alternative to right wing politics.
Sounds great. I must have missed the bit where he won the election for Labour.
Step 1. Get into power
Step 2. Do all the stuff above when it will actually make a difference
Absolutely. The electorate really went for it.
A large number did, yes.
Now whats the alternative being proposed and how do you propose retaining all those who went for the left wing option last time?
If he’s not the right leader he needs to go now.
Labour leaders don't get long before the case against them becomes fully formed in the press. Any new leader taking over this year will already be done in by the time a general election is called. This is one of the lessons ignored with Cornyn's tenure... 2017 was good timing for him... 2019 awful.
Starmer can't win a general election. I can't see anyone else coming forward to take over his current role though... I just hope that he and the Party understand that he needs to handover for a new leader to have a run up to the the next general election... a forlorn hope.
The electorate really went for it.
In 2017 they did, but because they didn't quite get over the line, all the positives to be taken from that campaign have been ignored in favour of something the electorate rejected over 10 years ago, and the results of this reversion to outdated new labour managerialism have been entirely predictable.
Shall I ask again? Which policies from 2017, that were broadly positively received, have been "rejected" by the Labour Party since Starmer became leader? Building on 2017, but "under new leadership" looks to be all Starmer is doing... nothing more, nothing less, nothing particularly "blairite" or "right wing" beyond what Labour were offering in 2017.
Step 1. Get into power
Step 2. Do all the stuff above when it will actually make a difference
The problem with that idea is, that if you play the game as it is now, you will a) only win an election if you have the support of the (mostly right wing controlled) media etc, and b) once you're there, you will do as you're told, and nothing else. So, even if Starmer did win, he'd only be able to act within whatever narrow agenda is set for him, as his lack of balls means he'll never stand up to his puppeteers, so you'll only get more of the same. He won't make any difference. So, if you genuinely want something different, you have to change the game. And Starmer isn't a game changer.
Word salad. How do you "change the game" from the sidelines? How do you counter the power of the press (these days it's the media more widely, not just the papers) from the sidelines? And your accusation about "not having balls once in power" is just conjecture... the kind of thing people said about Biden before he won.
Most importantly... because there is a pretty obvious theme to your posts Bridges... who are "his puppeteers"?
as his lack of balls means he’ll never stand up to his puppeteers
Can you clarify for us exactly who these dastardly 'puppeteers' are who exert such complete control over the leader of the labour party?
I gather it's Rupert Murdoch, as obviously he's behind everything, like some kind of evil omnipotent supreme being? And also, I presume, a secretive sect of zionists, yes? As we all know that they're apparently behind everything too?
Anyone else to add to your paranoid list of lefty bogeymen, or is that it?
nothing particularly “blairite” or “right wing” beyond what Labour were offering in 2017.
You're joking right? See my post yesterday with Chomsky's comments. Under Blair the labour party was a top-down organisation where policy was formulated by diktat, party members and activists were sidelined, and the party was completely controlled by the PLP. Corbyn went some way to turning that on it's head, reducing the power of the PLP (which is why they turned on him) and empowering the activist base resulting in the policies of 2017 and a vastly increased membership. Starmer has dismantled that and is doubling down on PLP dictatorial control resulting in party infighting, mass resignations, the creation of competing parties, and empty policies like british recovery bonds and flag shagging. Labour today couldn't be more different than it was in 2017.
Labour today couldn’t be more different than it was in 2017.
Which 2017 policies have been dumped?
resulting in party infighting, mass resignations, the creation of competing parties
So.. these things have happened under both Starmer and his predecessor... have they not?
Most importantly… because there is a pretty obvious theme to your posts Bridges… who are “his puppeteers“?
I'm intrigued by your assertions that there's a 'pretty obvious theme' to my posts. Care to elucidate a bit on that point?
I gather it’s Rupert Murdoch, as obviously he’s behind everything, like some kind of evil omnipotent supreme being, and a secretive sect of zionists?
Still hungover? It's Wednesday mate...
Care to elucidate a bit on that point?
If I really must...
https://twitter.com/IfNotNowOrg/status/1305992488654704641?s=20
The thing is, it's an actual fact that he was funded by wealthy pro-Israeli lobbyists with ties to the arms trade, and that he kept it secret.
It's a useful shield to suggest anyone who questions that is an anti-Semite isn't it.
Word salad. How do you “change the game” from the sidelines?
Quite effectively on occasion. Just ask the **** Farage.
That actually providing alternate options can force the other party to move your way isnt exactly radical thinking though so its surprising people still have problems with it.
as his lack of balls means he’ll never stand up to his puppeteers
Anti-Semitic trope of the day award goes to....
It’s a useful shield to suggest anyone who questions that is an anti-Semite isn’t it.
No, but the use of terms like "puppet masters" or "his puppeteers", in combination with a such a strong and repeated focus on Israel in a thread about a UK pollution, is something I find interesting. I was giving bridges the chance to explain why he uses that term, he pushed me to say what I see in that term.... and so I have. He can explain why I shouldn't make that link if he wants, and why he didn't mean to make that link if that is the case.
If I really must…
Ah. The Margaret Hodge approach. How amusing.
Actually; I sensed that was what you were wanting to get at. I just needed you to admit it. Little tip; don't get into playing poker. 😉
I could be offended. You're so wide of the mark, it's really very funny. You really, really want me to be something you can attack. And now; you see how you've been manipulated into imagining something that's not real. But now you have to ask yourself; why did you come to such a conclusion? What external forces are influencing and dictating the way you think?
Anti-Semitic trope of the day award goes to….
Oh this just gets better and better... 😀
Quite effectively on occasion. Just ask the **** Farage. That actually providing alternate options can force the other party to move your way isnt exactly radical thinking though so its surprising people still have problems with it.
So Labour should just try and move Conservative party policies, and accept that Tories will stay in power, but with some policies put in place that they only do so as to stop support for Labour growing? I think that's were we currently are. Greedily, I want more, and would rather Labour were in office effecting change directly.
The AS thing is a distraction, as ever. It's a simple fact that Starmer was almost entirely funded by a very small number of wealthy right-wing/Blairite Labour donors who had previously done their best to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity.
I wonder what they think they will get in return for their donations?
I wonder what they think they will get in return for their donations?
They've already got it.
why did you come to such a conclusion?
It's an age old trope. Now, feel free to explain why I was wrong to think of that, and that you weren't making that connection, it would be very welcome.
It’s an age old trope. Now, feel free to explain why I was wrong to think of that, and that you weren’t making that connection, it would be very welcome.
I don't actually need to defend myself in any way, to you. Your ignorance and delusion here is just incredible. I'm content to sit and watch you make a fool of yourself, with your ridiculous assertions. It's your own credibility you're destroying. It might be an idea if you apologised for your comments though, so we can all move on from this unpleasantness.
Greedily, I want more, and would rather Labour were in office effecting change directly.
Well it depends on what happens then doesnt it? If you get power by using tory policies then what happens to the "centre"? After ten years how will your centre left policy of today now be defined?
It might be an idea if you apologised for your comments though, so we can all move on from this unpleasantness.
Apologise? For what? Asking you why you use the term "puppeteers" when talking about links between Israel and a UK political leader? That term absolutely brings that trope to mind, when used in that context, because, you know... history. You just had to say that you didn't mean to make that connection, and you were unaware of it (unlikely), or slipped up (we all do), or I suppose you could try and claim that the trope doesn't exist, or that awareness of it is being "over sensitive" or something... crack on... it would be interesting to hear.
So.. these things have happened under both Starmer and his predecessor… have they not?
There weren't any splits in 2017. There were a few labour MPs kicking up a fuss but everyone ignored them as the party was largely united behind the transformative manifesto and energised by the election campaign. And then the defeated right wingers pressed the AS nuclear button. Everything that is happening today is a result of that. I try not to think about it too much as I can barely contain my rage and hatred for these scumbags who put their own petty egos ahead of the interests of the millions of working people they are supposed to represent.
Apologise? For what?
Funny that people tend to get a bit defensive when accused of being an anti-semite. Again, if you refer back to that Chomsky interview, you should read and absorb what he says. AS is too serious an issue to be used as a weapon in a petty political squabble.
There weren’t any splits in 2017.
Broadly true. And I hope Starmer continues from that 2017 policy base, as Labour should be able to build support around a tweaked version of it. But those leaving, or setting up other parties, now, are angry with Starmer for reasons that are nothing to do with the 2017 manifesto.
I try not to think about it too much as I can barely contain my rage and hatred for these scumbags who put their own petty egos ahead of the interests of the millions of working people they are supposed to represent.
I'm not surprised. But why isn't that also true of those setting up another 'party' to run against Labour now?
AS is too serious an issue to be used as a weapon in a petty political squabble.
Indeed. Hence why it's important not to use classic antisemitic tropes when describing UK politics. Why use the term "puppeteers" in the context of links between a UK political leader and Israel?
Quite effectively on occasion. Just ask the **** Farage.
that's not the first reference I've seen about effecting change from the "cheap seats" and Farage seems like the obvious poster boy, but he started banging the drum in the 90's and only really got going in 2006 when he became leader of UKIP. So; willing to give Starmer that long?
Apologise? For what? Asking you why you use the term “puppeteers” when talking about links between Israel and a UK political leader?
Ah. You see, I didn't mean Israel specifically, when I used that term. I was referring more to the powerful corporate interests that really rule society. Unfortunately, in seeking an opportunity to attack me, you've added numbers and come to the wrong conclusion. You allowed yourself to be influenced by propaganda, and didn't think it through enough yourself. But you are probably not even aware of this happening. It has served a purpose though; it shows just how easily people can be manipulated into thinking what others want them to.
Now you're a little more enlightened, you can apologise. And we can all move on. And hopefully, you will reflect on this, and not make the same mistake again. Cos, y'know, false accusations can be very, very offensive. And you don't want to be offensive, do you?
Which policies from 2017, that were broadly positively received, have been “rejected” by the Labour Party since Starmer became leader?
You're kidding, right? We're talking about a man who has publicly disowned his leadership election manifesto.