You posted this at least twice on contributions regarding Israel and Starmer’s labour

Yeah; puppet masters. And?

If you don’t think it’s a trope then fine, keep saying it.

Thanks, I will. Not that I need your, or anybody else’s, permission to use whatever words or language I choose. You’ve been challenged to prove my comments are in any way anti-Semitic, and have failed. You’ve now admitted the whole thing is a fictional narrative inside your own head.

At least one other person disagrees but you think they are delusional, so keep saying it

And several have pointed out where you’re wrong. Two others have even apologised for their insinuations/accusations. Time to do the honourable thing, and join them.

What you are actually demonstrating, very effectively, is just how smear campaigns work. Drip, drip, drip becomes a raging torrent of animosity, fuelled by nothing more than unfounded accusations and defamation. The genuine issue of anti-Semitism in our society, and the Labour party, is something that as been ignored repeatedly by various Labour leaders, including Blair, Brown and Milliband, yet suddenly, it became a massive problem under Corbyn. Really? But when you dig a bit deeper (you’re used to digging, so it won’t be hard for you), you discover that the reality is that Corbyn is the only Labour leader who has been openly critical of the Israeli regime, and the brutality imposed by a so-called ‘democratic’ state, on the Palestinians. The REAL reason the smear campaign started, was because there was a genuine fear amongst those who profit from the perpetuation of conflict (everywhere, not just in Palestine), that Corbyn would derail that gravy train. Penny starting to drop now? This has really **** all to do with actual anti-Semitism, or culture, or religion, and all to do with MONEY. And before you start off with your pathetic accusations of me using ‘tropes’; Corbyn is just as opposed to the regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, China, India, Brazil, the USA, and anywhere where fascistic governments act against true freedom and equality, but with whom our government are happy to do business with. Just as he was opposed to the regimes in South Africa, Chile, Sri Lanka, Tibet and numerous other countries. Corbyn actually has many Jewish friends, a point the mainstream media conveniently ignore, who are unequivocal in the fact he is not actually the anti-Semite some seem to believe he is. Meanwhile, whilst all this divisive politics is being played out, the actual issue of anti-Semitism (real, not imagined), is getting worse. Xenophobia and fascism are on the rise. Divide and rule works very well for those who profit from conflict. And here you are; duped by that smear campaign yourself, and doing their work for them. Well done. Bow down to your puppet masters.

Bridges whilst I agree with all of that, have you ever considered the wonderful innovation of paragraphs?

I never, any any stage, thought Corbyn was anti-semitic and am fully aware of his work and background regarding opposition to regimes and injustices.
However, due to his useless leadership and useless media skills he was able to be seen as not dealing with anti-semitism in the party. Yes, I am also aware of the agenda of those stirring it up who don’t seem to have the same agenda in stirring up racist issues within the tory party but that is what he had to deal with and he dealt with it poorly.

Too busy for paragraphs mate.

However, due to his useless leadership and useless media skills he was able to be seen as not dealing with anti-semitism in the party

Let me ask you a question; do you really believe all that? Like genuinely?

Thanks, I will. Not that I need your, or anybody else’s, permission to use whatever words or language I choose. You’ve been challenged to prove my comments are in any way anti-Semitic, and have failed. You’ve now admitted the whole thing is a fictional narrative inside your own head.

At least one other person disagrees but you think they are delusional, so keep saying it

And several have pointed out where you’re wrong. Two others have even apologised for their insinuations/accusations. Time to do the honourable thing, and join them.

What you are actually demonstrating, very effectively, is just how smear campaigns work. Drip, drip, drip becomes a raging torrent of animosity, fuelled by nothing more than unfounded accusations and defamation. The genuine issue of anti-Semitism in our society, and the Labour party, is something that as been ignored repeatedly by various Labour leaders, including Blair, Brown and Milliband, yet suddenly, it became a massive problem under Corbyn. Really? But when you dig a bit deeper (you’re used to digging, so it won’t be hard for you), you discover that the reality is that the only Labour leader who has been openly critical of the Israeli regime, and the brutality imposed by a so-called ‘democratic’ state, on the Palestinians. The REAL reason the smear campaign started, was because there was a genuine fear amongst those who profit from the perpetuation of conflict (everywhere, not just in Palestine), that Corbyn would derail that gravy train. Penny starting to drop now? This has really **** all to do with actual anti-Semitism, or culture, or religion, and all to do with MONEY. And before you start off with your pathetic accusations of me using ‘tropes’; Corbyn is just as opposed to the regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, China, India, Brazil, the USA, and anywhere where fascistic governments act against true freedom and equality. Just as he was opposed to the regimes in South Africa, Chile, Sri Lanka, Tibet and numerous other countries. Corbyn actually has many Jewish friends, a point the mainstream media conveniently ignore, who are unequivocal in the fact he is not actually the anti-Semite some seem to believe he is. Meanwhile, whilst all this divisive politics is being played out, the actual issue of anti-Semitism (real, not imagined), is getting worse. Xenophobia and fascism are on the rise. Divide and rule works very well for those who profit from conflict. And here you are; duped by that smear campaign yourself, and doing their work for them. Well done. Bow down to your puppet masters.

Thanks for successfully proving my point

I note the continued use of well known tropes

I also note the use of the “some of his friends are (insert minority here)” defence

So back on topic, who can Starmer draft in to lift his profile and to start to make in roads on the PM who yesterday sounded like a babbling schoolboy who hadn’t done his homework at PMQs?

However, due to his useless leadership and useless media skills

Loathe as I am to get into this, how does an opposition leader prevent the Daily Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph and Times publishing what they want? What sort of amazing media ‘skills’ would prevent that?

Anyway back to more pressing issues, I see the nurses are considering industrial action in protest at the tories 3% pay rise. It’s going to be interesting to see how labour pretend to be on the nurses side given they wanted them to have a 2% rise. Even Corbyn wouldn’t have shot himself in the foot like that. Talk about useless leadership and media skills, there’s a perfect example right there. 😂

who can Starmer draft in to lift his profile and to start to make in roads on the PM

He could draft in Angela Rayner to do his job after he’s resigned. The problem is not the people around him, it’s him. Nothing short of him going will solve this problem, and the longer he hangs on, the more Boris gets away with causing chaos, and the more labour will be blamed for not stopping him.

Thanks for successfully proving my point

That you’ve been duped by those who seek to profit from social division and conflict? No need to thank me; you did that all by yourself.

I note the continued use of well known tropes

Please; do feel free to point them out, and explain to the class why they are what you claim? Please.

I also note the use of the “some of his friends are (insert minority here)” defence

You really got bubkes, don’t you?

So back on topic,

When floundering, change the subject. Right. Ok.

Why not attempt to actually answer a question put to you? Or can’t you?

Yougov polling looking dire

I don’t know why so much importance is attached to approval ratings by some people when the only thing which is of any importance is how people will vote.

Obviously the more questions they ask the more work is created for the pollsters, but “Clegg mania” in 2010 didn’t translate into a huge increase in LibDem support and Corbyn’s appalling ratings in 2017 didn’t result in a fall in Labour support.

The latest opinion poll of voting intentions is by Survation (19-20 July) and it gives the Tories a 4 percent lead, which is the smallest Tory lead in several months.

As far as the Labour Party being skint is concerned I am sceptical of the problem. I have no reason to believe that it’s not true but nor do I have any reason to believe that it is a serious problem.

The entire claim appears to be based on one comment made by David Evans which is that the reserves only exist for one month’s wages.

Now Evans has a very clear anti-left agenda, something which he has pursued for many years as he also has his Blairite agenda.

He is a highly competent tactician with a long proven track record. My immediate thought was “who does he want to get rid of/clear out?”

He has campaigned for many years to restructure the party and has frankly talked about getting rid of, quote, “representative democracy”. He now has the perfect opportunity as unelected General Secretary of the Labour Party.

My suspicion is heightened by the fact that he personally gives only 2 reasons for the party financial difficulties. Firstly costly legal settlements, and secondly the mass exodus of members from the party.

It is surprising that he gives falling party membership as a reason as it looks so bad in terms of the present leadership, Starmer was suppose to attract new members, Evans is smart enough to know that. He could have also talked about falling donations which is undoubtedly a very serious problem. But he chose not to.

The question is why? Personally I think he likely thought that reluctantly admitting the falling membership would make his claim sound more believable among possible doubters….. “the party’s finances must be serious if Evans is forced to admit that people are leaving in their droves”.

I have tried to find out which positions/jobs are likely to go in this new slimline party apparatus but had no luck, which adds to my suspicion. I know that the Labour Party is contracting out their complaints procedure, which is very strange for a political party, to a company called “Love Success”.

I don’t know how letting a private firm make a profit out of your complaints procedure will help with the party’s finances.

Of course it might all be perfectly true that the Party’s finances are dire, but it is a mistake to assume that it is just because Evans says it is.

Loathe as I am to get into this, how does an opposition leader prevent the Daily Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph and Times publishing what they want? What sort of amazing media ‘skills’ would prevent that?

He can’t prevent that but he can do a much better job of dealing with it – via his media presence (interviews, tv appearances) and leadership within the party.
Yes, in reality it wasn’t that big an issue to deal with and the previous leaders didn’t deal with it but they were not in the same position. And the position he was in was not helped by guess what – his useless leadership and media ability.

Let me ask you a question; do you really believe all that? Like genuinely?

Yes I write what I believe in. Don’t you believe in what you write?

Yes I write what I believe in

So next question; what are your prime sources of information?

He could draft in Angela Rayner to do his job after he’s resigned.

I believe her personal life might be a bit messy at the moment so not the best time to step up.

As for the finances I really doubt they are that bad, as you say probably a part of the smokescreen to clear house in head office, arguably badly needed, but not the distraction you need

Why not attempt to actually answer a question put to you? Or can’t you?

I’m sure you are expert at defending your use of Language and would run rings round someone you yourself call delusional. You clearly have had a lot of practice defending you turns of phrase and no doubt are convinced that you are absolutely justified in using the words you do.

I still think they are tropes, used in the context of tropes, and are language that should be confined to the history books.

When floundering, change the subject. Right. Ok.

I was returning the thread back to the original topic, sorry to burst your ego bubble but it’s more interesting than your increasingly hysterical defence of your language. You can start a new thread with that topic if you want.

I still think they are tropes, used in the context of tropes

So; explain why then. If you truly believe what you are insinuating, then you should be able to explain why.

If you’ve made a mistake, then it would be far more honourable to just admit it, apologise and move on.

sorry to burst your ego bubble

You can’t even admit you’ve made a mistake, that you’ve **** up, that you’re wrong and have no argument, and you’re talking about ego? Lol!

The entire claim appears to be based on one comment made by David Evans which is that the reserves only exist for one month’s wages.

Yeah agreed, “reserves” is the key word here. I don’t think he’s talking about current acct balance, assets, donations, etc etc he’s talking about a very specific bank acct. It might be that court fines or settlements are drawn from the reserve acct, but I’d imagine they have a plan for increasing the amount, even if it is a reduction in day to day spending.

Electoral Commission summary of Labour Party accts Oct 2020

Obviously it’s 8-9 months out of date but there’s £25.6M in the reserve acct…

I would have thought that one thing we could agree on by now is that Labour is not going to gain support simply by waiting for government cock-ups…

Unequivocally.

But the point is Starmer isn’t doing anything. So the only current minuscule of hope is something drastic happens to the Cons.

Starmer had his chance. You could argue that the pandemic prevented him from going on the attack and making the most of being the new leader in the six months of his leadership… but it’s hard to argue either that he’ll get a second chance, or that he looks to have the skills to make the most of one. So we’re back to a new Labour leader taking on the Conservatives at the next election. Which is where most of us were already this time last year. So we’re back to… who, when and how…

He can’t prevent that but he can do a much better job of dealing with it – via his media presence (interviews, tv appearances) and leadership within the party.

So what should he have done?
You do realise outside of fantasy land the media get to choose who they interview and how and for example might deliberately edit a interview to make someone look bad?
A perfect example of the fantasy about good media is Cameron. He was put forward as an all conquering media expert with his PR background (itself a tad of a lie since having mummy get you a job as a PR flack isnt exactly much of a PR role) compared to Milliband but as soon as he actually went against the press he suddenly fell to bits.
As for leadership inside the party. What do you suggest? He was dealing with a bunch of ideological lunatics whose only interest was purging the left. These arent people open to rational argument so the only real option would have been to boot them out.

But the point is Starmer isn’t doing anything. So the only current minuscule of hope is something drastic happens to the Cons.

I am assuming that the latest poll which has reduced the Tory to just 4% is more about the Tories doing badly than Labour doing well.

Of course once any bad headlines disappear then double poll leads are likely and it merely represents a unimportant blip.

If you want win people over and motivate them to walk down to their polling stations on election day you really need to give them something to believe in.

Arguing that the Tories are shit and so are we but they are more shit than us is a poor strategy.

So back on topic, who can Starmer draft in to lift his profile and to start to make in roads on the PM who yesterday sounded like a babbling schoolboy who hadn’t done his homework at PMQs?

He can’t. Starmer’s the issue.

As for media training – it only goes so far. When your core beliefs are not distinct enough away from the Tories you are stuck in a debate that is all about competence, and that frankly is a waste of time for shifting voting patterns. We have seen that time and time again this year.

Does anyone remember or care about wallpapergate?

you really need to give them something to believe in.

The problem for any leader of Labour is of course that to win any election now, you need not only Conservative voters to vote for you, but SNP voters as well. Persuading those two disparate groups to vote the same way will be a challenge.

I agree with @big_n_daft’s summary; competent enough to do the job, not competent enough to get there.

That was pretty much my summary in 2019 !

We’ll never know if the first statement is true, he will never be PM. He doesn’t have what it takes to get there, that was obvious from the start.

You could argue that the pandemic prevented him from going on the attack and making the most of being the new leader in the six months of his leadership

Or you could argue that he used the cover of the pandemic to instigate a factional war against the membership in an effort to regain rightwing central control of the party. It’s easy to look inwards when you’re prevented from talking to the public. Not that he would have done that in any case, pandemic or not.

competent enough to do the job

Any evidence of that? He couldn’t even execute a minor reshuffle without being forced to promote the one person he wanted to sack!

When your core beliefs are not distinct enough away from the Tories

But Starmer’s are when he wants them to be.

My pledges to you :

My promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power – so that we can advance the interests of the people our party was created to serve.

Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.

1. Economic justice
Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.

2. Social justice
Abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime. Set a national goal for wellbeing to make health as important as GDP; Invest in services that help shift to a preventative approach. Stand up for universal services and defend our NHS. Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning.

3. Climate justice
Put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do. There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency. A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally. Demand international action on climate rights.

4. Promote peace and human rights
No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.

5. Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.

6. Defend migrants’ rights
Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.

8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity
Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.

9. Equality
Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade.

10. Effective opposition to the Tories
Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament – linked up to our mass membership and a professional election operation. Never lose sight of the votes ‘lent’ to the Tories in 2019. Unite our party, promote pluralism and improve our culture. Robust action to eradicate the scourge of antisemitism. Maintain our collective links with the unions.

Keir Starmer

^ he’s on record saying that he’s abandoned those pledges.

he’s abandoned those pledges.

Yes that’s very obvious! Even without him admitting guilt. And he abandoned them with astonishing speed.

The point is he is perfectly capable of offering an alternative to the Tories if he feels it is necessary. His core beliefs are adapted to suit the situation.

“These are my principles, if you don’t like them I have others”

G. Marx

But Starmer’s are when he wants them to be.

That’s why I never believed it from the start.

The point being core beliefs are what drives you strongly to do something progressive. He doesn’t really have them.

I think they though it would be easy to win over the floaters. The Ian Dunts of the world have this belief too.

The middle ground is a rudderless place to exist in politics.

So we’re back to a new Labour leader taking on the Conservatives at the next election. Which is where most of us were already this time last year. So we’re back to… who, when and how…

Jeremy Corbyn couldn’t do any worse. A monkey with a twitter account couldn’t do any worse, come to think of it. Even Ed Milliband couldn’t do any worse! 😀

Good to see all the former Armresters on here seeing sense at last. Some of us saw that pretty much as soon as Starmer was elected leader, some, even sooner. But it’s good that finally people have realise just how utterly **** useless Starmer is.

As for the next leader; the only way to actually challenge the tories, is with some actual policies that people can get behind. Such as protecting the NHS, protecting and improving workers rights, pay and conditions, improving representation for minorities, increasing public spending on vital services, making education accessible for all, re-nationalising essential services and industries, etc. Basically, just going back to 2009 would be a good start. But anyone daring to suggest such (as Corbyn did…) would probably now be labelled an evil commie or something, by the mainstream right wing media. anyone who wants to genuinely take Labour forward into being a viable political force, has to have the balls to push for such policies. Corbyn had those balls; Starmer has none. Now, more than ever, is the time for the membership to unite and force the neo-liberals out. There really is no other way. Otherwise it’s tory rule forever.

That’s why I never believed it from the start.

Which suggests that the real problem exists with the party membership.

Starmer won the leadership election with 56% of the vote. For that to happen required a significant amount of the 62% who had previously voted for Corbyn to vote for him.

Why would anyone who had backed Corbyn want to back Starmer? Starmer went out of his way to undermine Corbyn (their choice) with coordinating front bench resignations designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage on Corbyn. And all carefully choreographed to provide maximum media coverage.

Both the right and the left within the Labour Party accepts that Labour’s Brexit stance in 2019 (compared to its 2017 stance) was hugely damaging electorally to the party.

Why on earth choose as leader the one person above all others (Labour’s shadow Brexit minister) most responsible for pursuing that policy?

Labour’s poor leadership choices is a reflection of the serious issues it has concerning its membership, and how disconnected it has become from the wider population.

That is true of both the left and the right of the party.

Changing leaders solves and changes nothing.

Labour’s poor leadership choices is a reflection of the serious issues it has concerning its membership

Fairly sure that this conflict in the membership is present in every party though, Just as Labour is made up of everything from hard-left socialists, through Scandinavian style social democrats to left of centre liberals, the Tories have an equally diverse membership of Die-hard Thatcherites to market-town Middle Englanders, Landed gentry to UKIP anti Europeans, to full on free-market libertarians. In think given the political landscape as it stands, the Tories’ membership find they have more to agree with each other than to disagree about. Having lost the last 4 elections, Labour are the opposite.

At my most pessimistic I think Labour are on a long downwards spiral to disintegration, I don’t think winning an election would do anything to stop the in-fighting and in fact could easily make it worse, at my most optimistic, I think all it would take is someone to rally around, and Labour could be a unstoppable force for change.

Why would anyone who had backed Corbyn want to back Starmer?

I think a lot of people were prepared to swallow a few principles to achieve a practical result, and were somewhat reassured by Starmer’s promises. I was on the fence so made him my second preference, but I never imagined that he would be quite so spectacularly useless as he has proven to be.

Why would anyone who had backed Corbyn want to back Starmer?

I backed Corbyn, until it became obvious that he wasn’t a good enough leader and couldn’t prevent the infighting, I voted Starmer as I thought he was bland enough to not be offensive to either side of the party and he promised to keep the policies. Same as Ransos, I never thought he’d be quite this invisible

Changing leaders solves and changes nothing.

Well, changing leaders has made Labour even more ‘unelectable’, so that at least has changed. But Labour needs a root and branch reform, and a clearing out of all the neoliberals, Blairites and right-wingers, if it’s ever going to offer and actual viable alternative for society.

From the very first page of this thread:

I’m just hoping the rumours are true (IIRC it was in the Guardian) that the first thing Kier Starmer is going to do is have a night of the long knives to clear out every last one of the utterly useless Corbynites, both on the front bench and behind the scenes, and actually appoint some people who are capable of finding their own arses using both hands.

I’m also hoping that involves firing Richard Burgon into the sun.

There needs to be a Kinnock/Militant style purge to even think dragging the labour party back from its Corbynite political irrelevence, where its presently languishing in its own delusional ‘we won the argument’ bullshit

How’s that worked out? Have the Armresters ‘won the argument’ this time? Labour are even more irrelevant now. As they were under Kinnock. You’d think that trying exactly the same thing that didn’t work before, would be a stupid thing to do, no? Apparently Sir Keith isn’t bothered about historical facts. Shame, because he might have just avoided utter humiliation and failure.

actually appoint some people who are capable of finding their own arses using both hands

So far, Armrest has managed to lose many, many thousands of members, many millions of pounds of party funds, the support of donors, unions and voters, and so far shows no sign of knowing where his own arse is. Which would be handy, because he could then perhaps try to avoid the door hitting it on his way out. Dear oh dear.

Hey All,

Just a comment and my last. Whilst the vote is split we will keep getting a Conservative government. They aren’t the majority, that’s for sure but they have gamed the system to ensure that votes are split between Greens, Labour and Liberals, then in Wales and Scotland you obviously have the other parties of Plaid Cymru and SNP. So the issue is first past the post and us squabbling who to vote for, whilst forgetting that we need to get rid of the Tory’s regardless…

JeZ

Tories have an equally diverse membership…

I am not saying that Labour’s problem are due to a diversity of membership, I am in fact saying the complete opposite. Sorry I should have made that clearer.

The demographics of both the left and the right of the party is pretty much identical these days. Someone on the right of the party is more than likely to have the same background as someone on the left.

Dennis Skinner would stand zero chance of being selected to stand as a candidate in today’s Labour Party, it just wouldn’t happen. A qualified barrister would stand a far better chance.

The problem with Labour isn’t its diversity but its lack of diversity. In fact the Tories probably offer more opportunities for people of different backgrounds to progress through the party than Labour does.

I never thought he’d be quite this invisible

Given he spent almost all of his leadership campaign cosying up to the left to convince them to vote for him on a platform of unity, I never thought he’d turn on them almost instantly and spend the next 18 months putting more effort into fighting his own party rather than the tories. 18 months and not a single identifiable policy or statement of what he would do in government. And we wonder why no one wants to vote for him?

If only those he is fighting with also put more effort into fighting the Tories than the Labour party leader. This pendulum of factions of the party battling for relevance against each other is utterly tiresome to outside observers (ie most voters). Those groups listed as likely to be proscribed in the party soon are just as much part of the problem as Starmer. And run by people outside the party wanting to damage it.

And run by people outside the party wanting to damage it.

Labour is already run by people outside the party wanting to damage it. They say jump, Armrest requests information on altitude. He is fulfilling his role perfectly. He just doesn’t know it. Yet. I know the right wingers on here desperately to want to blame ‘lefties’, but I think even they are starting to slowly wake up to the reality that the game all along was to reduce Labour to nothing more than a political irrelevance, and no threat to global corporate interests.

Those groups listed as likely to be proscribed in the party soon are just as much part of the problem as Starmer.

Don’t be so silly. You’re talking about a few dozen, tops, people who aren’t all that bothered either way; Labour aren’t representative of their ideals, so it’s pointless them supporting the party. Their expulsion will achieve the square root of absolutely **** all. But continue to believe it’s all their fault, if it makes you happy. I’m sure it’ll be of great comfort, as you look forward to tory rule for the rest of your lives.

are just as much part of the problem as Starmer. And run by people outside the party wanting to damage it.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

Do really think as many people are saying “I’m not voting Labour because it’s full of organisations which I have never heard of such as Socialist Appeal” as are saying “I’m not voting Labour because I haven’t got a clue what they stand for and their leader doesn’t inspire me”?

I very much doubt that you do and your comment was just simply a need to have a dig at the left.

And the suggestion that they want to damage the Labour Party is equally ridiculous. Unlikely the Blairite right they have no interest in a Tory government.