This is the best thread I’ve seen on STW for years! You’re lost on here Binners!

I think the credit on this thread needs to go to those fearless champions of Corbynism and their belief, like those Japanese soldiers still in the jungle fighting the second world war, that their socialist dawn will come.

Bless their little Marxist socks 😉

😂

Voted. Starmer 1, RLB 2. Rayner for deputy with no second pref. My place in liberal metropolitan elite is confirmed.

Listening to the three candidates on Sky tonight and I have to say voting labour is not an option. What a trio of weak individuals. What are they thinking?

What a trio of weak individuals.

Yeah of course. Bloody snowflakes. What we really need is politicians who are so strong they don’t give a flying **** about anything or anyone beyond their own career ambitions. Survival of the fittest (or rather the most cruel) and the strongest is the order the day.

Votes done. For Becky and Rich, obciously

Bring on the new socialist dawn!

I left the party because of Corbyn.

Watching Starmer with renewed optimism, I think that party members have had enough of Corbynism and Wrong-Daily. As for the deputy post, I really want to see Allin-Khan get the gig, but it’s going to be Rayner.

What a trio of weak individuals.

Which would you prefer, entitled sociopaths who are nowhere to be seen during times of crisis, or compassionate politicians who actually want to do something to improve the lot of people? Gosh, it’s a difficult one, isn’t it?

Votes done. For Becky and Rich, obciously

Bring on the new socialist dawn!

Hahaha!

I follow Burgon on Twitter. He’s an intellectual vacuum isn’t he?

I suggested yesterday that everyone should follow Comrade Richard on Twitter. His account is like an algorithm that randomly generates nonsensical socialist-themed cobblers. Like Alan Partridge shouting out program ideas. Though Monkey Tennis actually makes more sense than most of Richards jabberings

The fact that Momentum think he’s the right man for the job tells you everything you need to know about those gang of clowns

Votes submitted.
Starmer for leader; Nandy second preference; no preference for long-bailey.
Rayner for deputy; Allin-Khan second preference; no preference for any of the others.

Submitted my vote this morning. Starmer for leader; Nandy 2nd, and no preference for RLB.
For deputy I voted Rayner (partly because I felt that if Starmer wins the deputy should ideally represent a non-London constituency); second preference Ian Murray; third Allin Khan and fourth Butler. Despite being a non-London MP and also a fellow Leeds United fan, I couldn’t face the prospect of voting for Burgon and so left him off the preferences.
Didn’t vote for the NEC candidates as not familiar with any of them.

Looks like the knives are out for Rayner now. She’s played a blinder dominating the deputy race, rather than going for leader. Those that are Corbyn first, the Labour Party second, and the country third, are properly laying into her now though… they want the blind loyalty (to Corbyn and his team) of Burgon, and are getting pretty nasty on social media about her to try and shake up the vote.

Not sure how much that will work though. If I was still a member and able to vote I haven’t seen any of the social media stuff because I haven’t looked, not subscribed to it etc,.

I’ve had a couple of emails off Richie B asking me if I’ll be joining him in his mission for his Peace Pledge to become Labour policy, so that the country can’t go to war unless the sixth formers are consulted and all think its a good idea.

There was a nice little video of him sat having a cosy chat explaining it to Jeremy, who thought it was a marvellous idea, obviously.

I couldn’t see if he was wearing his usual ‘I ❤️ Jeremy’ T-shirt on.

Truly beyond satire

Idiot!

Idiot!

Clearly he’s an idiot for wanting peace! Given labour members have called every recent war right maybe it’s a good idea to ask them? It wouldn’t be necessary had Blair not completely ignored pretty much everyone in favour of sucking up to Bush and massaging his massive ego.

You seem peculiarly enthusiastic about us fighting wars though. Very odd.

I’m no more enthusiastic about wars than anyone else.

I’m interested to know why one particular decision – quite an important one – would be put to the ballot of members of the labour party?

Why do they get a say on it, when people who aren’t members of the labour party don’t?

I know that Jeremy (peace be upon him etc…) was on about restoring democracy to the party, but I hadn’t realised that extended to government policy being devolved to ‘the membership’.

At the end of the day its just another example of the stream-of-conciousness nonsense that seems to be the stock in-trade of the Corbynites.

FREE BROADBAND FOR EVERYBODY!

A STATUE OF TONY BENN ON EVERY STREET!

Do you think they’ve any plans to return from planet penis any time soon, and possibly re-engage with reality?

Hearteningly, it would appear from the polling that the majority of the party membership is signalling its had quite enough of Rich, Becky, Len and the rest of their dim-witted, voter-repelling, Marxist fellow travellers

I’m interested to know why one particular decision – quite an important one – would be put to the ballot of members of the labour party?

Because recent history has shown that some labour leaders can’t be trusted not to fight unjustifiable wars. This is the legacy of your hero Blair. You’re right, it should go without saying that a labour PM should be able to be trusted to make such an important decision. The fact that the membership might feel they can’t says all you need to know about Dear Tony.

FREE BROADBAND FOR EVERYBODY!

You don’t think that universal and affordable access to fast internet services would be a good thing? There’s a debate to be had on the best way to deliver it, but broadband should be a new utility like electricity and water, rather than the free-for-all postcode lottery it is now.

Is there any point having a leader/PM, front bench/cabinet, or even MPs, if all major decisions when in office go back to a vote of unelected pay to vote members?

I can see why the 500, 000 strong labour party membership would think it was a great idea for them to be consulted on what they’d personally like to happen when it comes to important government decisions.

What I’m less clear about is why the other 66 million people in the country would be happy that their opinion didn’t matter ? And why they’d vote for a party that would immediately relegate them to second-class citizen status. Unless they joined ‘The Party’ of course? Which doesn’t have any dodgy tin-pot dictatorship connotations, or anything

Perhaps members of the labour party should have priority lanes on motorways too, so they could get around a bit easier than everyone else? What, with them being so really important and everything.

Got to love that old school soviet era communist philosophy. All men are equal, its just that some are more equal than others 😂

Do you think they’ve any plans to return from planet penis any time soon, and possibly re-engage with reality?

This is a newly discovered dwarf planet just beyond Uranus?

broadband should be a new utility like electricity and water, rather than the free-for-all postcode lottery it is now.

Just for clarity, not every postcode has those utilities (admittedly quite rare).

Also, electric in rural areas is often flaky like cadbury.

Personally, I don’t have access to mains gas or sewage – which is not uncommon outside metropolitan boundaries – so I have to pay extra for heating and crapping. Pay per poo, you might say.

I’d absolutely vote labour on a purely selfish basis, if they were going to hook me up and halve my costs.

Couldn’t give a fig about free broadband though. Maybe that’s just me.

‘Free’ Broadband sounded so shallow… but taking the near monopoly provider of wired broadband into public ownership, to make it deliver the infrastructure its been promising for years but failed to deliver (despite all the state subsidies), could really help to promote economic activity, and reduce social isolation, for ‘not-London’. A serious policy made to sound like pork barrel politics by those tasked with explaining the policy during a election campaign where they were totally out of their depth. Totally out of their depth.

That Richard Burgon could look back on his own role in explaining Labour policy and winning over voters last year, and think that he is up to the job of being part of the new leadership team, is a _______ joke.

Unless they joined ‘The Party’ of course? Which doesn’t have any dodgy tin-pot dictatorship connotations, or anything

What on earth are you on about? It’s perfectly reasonable for the membership of a party to want to be able to hold a leader to account on actions which may be in direct contravention of the party’s policies, principles and history. The only tin-pot dictator the labour party has had in it’s recent history is your mate Blair. Had he not acted in the way he did all this wouldn’t even be thought about let alone seriously proposed by a deputy leadership candidate.

Erm… ok Comrade

So by the same metric, if Boris stands up tomorrow and says that he’s had an idea and that he fancies bringing back the death penalty. He knows it’s controversial so he’s going to consult.

Not the electorate (despite that working out pretty well last time for him. And the time before that, etc….), or MPs (ditto), but…

The Tory Party membership.

He’s going to put it to them, exclusively, and see what they come back with? See if they fancy hanging people again? Maybe the electric chair? Or firing squads? Public stoning in the street?

And whatever they suggest, in their infinite wisdom… thats then government policy and everyone else who isn’t a member of the Tory party, and thus not entitled to an opinion on the matter, is just going to have to suck it up.

Happy with that?

Labour leadership candidate Lisa Nandy tells @BBCLauraK that members of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership team "made it very clear" they would wage factional war within the party, "until the other side had been crushed"#LabourLeadership https://t.co/xuqf4KN9BS pic.twitter.com/6JJ7JOPn0L

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 6, 2020

Well, no one can argue that Nandy isn’t saying what she thinks needs saying, rather than what the membership want to hear.

Good from Lisa, Not letting L.K put words in her mouth also. But would Blair have done anything different? He would have 100% WAGED WAR! any leader would have to.

The last G.E was shite beyond words from the Corbyn team so good riddance.

Binners makes a very good point. Whilst general policy is fair game for party member input specific governmental decisions should be taken by individual MP’s.

But would Blair have done anything different? He would have 100% WAGED WAR! any leader would have to.

Would they? A sizeable number of our allies chose not to, rightly as it turned out because there was no actionable evidence.

You don’t think that universal and affordable access to fast internet services would be a good thing?

Affordable is one thing free is another

Good to see Lisa stating what’s been fairly obvious all along, but isn’t allowed to be vocalised as the Glorious Leader must be above critisism. It was obvious that the ‘leadership’ had a bunker mentality which was actively hostile to anyone who dared to question the wisdom or competence of those around Grandad

She’s the only one who even seems prepared to talk about the elephant in the room – the abject failure of Corbynism to seriously engage with the electorate. It can’t be much of a surprise when its obvious that it wasn’t remotely interested in engaging with its own MP’s, and any questioning or compromising from the Idealogical Purity of those in the bunker was deemed as surrender or treachery.

Whoever becomes leader needs a complete clearout of all those around Corbyn who have failed so comprehensively. Lisa Nandy is the only one of the leadership or deputy leader contenders who understands the scale of the rebuilding that needs doing for the Labour party to stand the remotest chance of being electable

But would Blair have done anything different? He would have 100% WAGED WAR! any leader would have to.

When Jezza and the awkward squad were constantly voting against their own party, far from waging war on them, Blair and Brown comprehensively ignored them. They clearly viewed them for the oddball 70’s throwbacks that they are, and just tolerated them without engaging in the confrontation they clearly wanted. Blair clearly thought ‘job done’ as far a that mob was concerned once Clause 4 was sorted.

Its telling that Corbynite numbskull Richard Burgon is proposing re-introducing Clause 4. Not so much fighting yesterdays battles, as the last century’s

If coronavirus finishes off Corbyn (statistically possible), will Tory HQ build a memorial to his facilitating of their successful election campaigns?

They would probably rename Tory Central Office ‘Jeremy Corbyn House’

When Jezza and the awkward squad were constantly voting against their own party, far from waging war on them, Blair and Brown comprehensively ignored them.

Correct. Instead, they waged war on Iraq.

And your point is what, caller?

That Tony Blair got Iraq very wrong, and therefore those* that campaigned against the Bush Iraq War mkII have a god given right to ruin things now.

*Assuming they were part of the Stop The War Coalition of true socialists… whether in the Labour Party at the time or not… obviously if they were Labour members appearing with and talking to LibDem traitors, also campaigning against the war, then everything they have said or done since has just been in support of the Tories and they should be pushed out.

Lisa Nandy demands answers over missing Labour leadership ballots

Looks like those ocialist revolutionaries at the top of the party are conducting themselves with the same level of quiet competence and ruthless efficiency that has charecterised their period in charge…

The sooner these clowns are cleared out, the better

conducting themselves with the same level of quiet competence and ruthless efficiency

On the contrary, that seems exactly what they are doing (unless that wasn’t sarcasm 🙂 )

That Tony Blair got Iraq very wrong, and therefore those* that campaigned against the Bush Iraq War mkII have a god given right to ruin things now.

*Assuming they were part of the Stop The War Coalition of true socialists… whether in the Labour Party at the time or not… obviously if they were Labour members appearing with and talking to LibDem traitors, also campaigning against the war, then everything they have said or done since has just been in support of the Tories and they should be pushed out.

You’ll have to explain what this means.

I wonder if Nandy has done a deal with Starmer. She’s a distant third place so is calling out the party issues that may damage Starmer’s bid if he were to do so?