• This topic has 21,651 replies, 378 voices, and was last updated 2 days ago by rone.
Viewing 40 posts - 21,601 through 21,640 (of 21,652 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • kelvin
    Full Member

    A little reminder that Neal Lawson in this case wasn’t promoting tactical voting to get Tories out, he was voicing support for Green party candidates to replace Labour councillors with the help of LibDems candidates stepping aside. Yes, that’s tactical voting… but when you’re supporting its use against the party you’re a member of… it’s not going to go down so well. Even if it’s ignored or welcomed when the same tactics are used against sitting Conservatives.

    stumpyjon
    Full Member

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-sacks-frontbench-rebels-after-49-labour-mps-defy-him-over-brexit

    There’s plenty more examples, Google Corbyn sackings.

    As we keep having to remind you its not so simple as that.

    Ok you’re right, better to be politically nuanced and powerless.

    Where do you draw the line at getting power, well at the moment let’s start with not doing anything illegal and not demonizing parts of society for cheap votes. I think that would put the country in a much better place than it is today.

    MSP
    Full Member

    Sacking people from the front bench isn’t the same as purging them from the party.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    Yes, that’s tactical voting… but when you’re supporting its use against the party you’re a member of… it’s not going to go down so well.

    A little reminder that as with most things with Starmer, including antisemitism, the willingness to enforce things does seem rather dependant on how other political views align with Starmers own.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    There’s plenty more examples, Google Corbyn sackings.

    Errr yes. You do understand the difference between not being in the shadow cabinet and being expelled from the party, right?
    So your examples are getting off to a bad start. Especially when you consider the fact that in order to sack them Corbyn gave them the job to begin with. Not something which would happen under Starmers narrow church. Well aside from when he tried it with Rayner and failed since he wasnt able to rig the system quite that far, yet.

    Ok you’re right, better to be politically nuanced and powerless.

    As ever your strawmanning is only matched by your whining when people treat you like you treat others.
    I see you admit there should be some nuance so perhaps thats progress. Of course you might want to think about why the tories are going for those options and the problems of labour following them rightwards.

    nickc
    Full Member

    If anything, I would say that Corbyn didn’t do enough to shape the party in his image. You could make the (pretty convincing) argument that politically he couldn’t, but aside from that; there’s no way that you can compare the Labour leadership’s view on dissent in the ranks then and now. Starmer is much more active in this area.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    Starmer is much more active in this area.

    Somewhat of an understatement but there lies the problem. Its a party and not a one man organisation.
    As all the right wingers were keen on during Corbyns time but soon binned off the “broad church” as soon as it ended.
    The leader does need to be able to represent and give all sides of the party some input.
    Otherwise how can he do so for the country as a whole as PM?

    nickc
    Full Member

    Its a party and not a one man organisation.

    But as Corbyn’s (and Sunak’s for that matter) time has showed if nothing else, unless you’ve got your hands firmly on the steering wheel, some-one else is going to grab it and take it where they want it. Labour has always (right from the get go) been a divided organisation, and beholden to it’s factionalism to a greater or lesser extent, right now it’s being driven by the centre and right of the party, and no wonder.  It won’t last forever, it never has.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    20 in one council seems like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, probably doesn’t shift the dial much.

    It seems a lot because 20 councillors all resigning at the same time from one council is a lot.

    And it isn’t the only mass resignation of councillors to have occurred recently. Labour has now lost control of four or five councils due to councillors resigning from the Labour Party.

    However much you might dismiss it as inconsequential it is certainly not normal. And with the mass resignations of those councillors will be ordinary party members, including the foot soldiers that do much of the hard work at election time, so they are taking effective electoral expertise with them.

    I certainly would not want to overstate the significance of this recent development but it could indeed prove quite significant. At the moment they are just “independent” on councils but we also have a few Labour Party MPs without the party whip, and former Labour mayor Jamie Driscoll is standing with RMT backing as an independent in the North East.

    There is a lot of talk throughout the country of former Labour Party members standing as independents with support from other former Labour Party members. Eventually it will make sense for them to coordinate their activities and get themselves a name beyond just independents.

    Personally I think they are jumping the gun and now is not the time to form a new party, if for no other reason than that the electorate has not imo reached the conclusion that another political party is necessary. The Labour vote might be very soft but there still appears to be this belief that a Labour government will deliver something significantly better.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    It’s no surprise that starmer is loosing councillors, I imagine he’s going to lose a helluva lot more as well as mp’s willing to stand under Labour with this mealy mouthed response. William Dalrymple nails him below

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    I was at a local community iftar yesterday evening to raise money for Medical Aid for Palestine. There were three speakers (all British) two of them surgeons, one has recently been working  treating the injured at the Nasser hospital in Gaza – the stories he told, such as the children having limbs amputated without an aesthetic, were challenging to listen to.

    But the most interesting was the one he told of how one morning the IDF refused to let him travel from their safe house (it was safe because it was isolated from any other building in the middle of nowhere and therefore could not be accidentally hit – the IDF knew in contained medical staff) later on that same day it was targeted by an Israeli F-16 and very seriously damaged. This was the event:

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-bombed-british-doctors-deconflicted-site-gaza-mps-hear

    Last night’s speaker was one of the four British doctors mentioned in that article.

    I have to say to say that I have recently become impressed my Alice Kearns apparent determination to hold Israel accountable for war crimes.

    The third speaker was Mike Cushman whose grandparents fled  the Russian pogroms and is chairman of Jewish Voice for Labour. He has actually been expelled from the Labour Party for anti-semitism. Although “for criticising Israel” would be more precise.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Had some visitors at work today

    I did not push Rache on MMTPXL_20240403_103042348

    somafunk
    Full Member

    Bounce….bounce….bounce….bounce….all the way to the bottom.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    That was a play on words in relation to their polices btw

    rone
    Full Member

    Had some visitors at work today

    I did not push Rache on MMT

    🤣🤣🤣

    But must be making progress ‘cos even the old Guardian was coming around at the weekend .

    As with money created through bank lending, money created through government spending does not persist and circulate indefinitely through the economy. The slightly shocking and dispiriting reality is that, when you pay your taxes, the money doesn’t go into an account or a vault. It is vaporised. The tax payments cancel out the money that was created at the time of the original government spending.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    is it/thre

    pisco
    Full Member

    This seems at odds with The Daily Mail’s usual stance on Labour. Have I missed a change of editor, or are the rats leaving the sinking ship?

    Screenshot_20240412_064918_BBC News

    deepeebriz
    Free Member

    No change in the DM editorial team. They will have wanted the Starmer article about Trident, as they know it appeals to their readership and the DM’s first priority – ahead of party politics – is to tell their readers what they want to hear. They also need to cosy up to Labour, as it is a bad look for them to be seen as backing a losing horse (the Tories). It works for Starmer too, as it is the most read paper. His contribution will have been conditional on final approval of the article and headline.

    rone
    Full Member

    Starmer has found the magic money tree for defense spending!

    Excellent – he can now find some cash for other things then the absolute Conservative showman.

    Always the damn same. Our leaders are dismal.

    (Not saying we shouldn’t spend on defence but like the USA the lack of money arguments tends to go away for military spending )

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    With Starmer’s and Reeves’s much vaunted commitment to fiscal prudence I can’t imagine them shaking the money tree, the money must come from elsewhere surely?

    To be fair the UK’s WMDs are obviously very expensive but I am surprised that the Tories haven’t attached as much importance to them as Starmer apparently does.

    Although presumably there will be a U-turn on this policy in a couple of months time?

    kerley
    Free Member

    Although presumably there will be a U-turn on this policy in a couple of months time?

    Given his 100% record I think that is a given.

    Wonder who he is going to choose as his new deputy.  I thought Rayner had an appeal that Starmer didn’t so will be bad to lose here but I think she will go as it seems pretty clear that she did not actually live at her primary residence.  A pretty stupid thing to go for but as alway Labour seem to need to be angels whereas the tories would just brush it off  and carry on.

    argee
    Full Member

    Pretty much a non-story, Trident is a deal that the UK and US are signed up to for a long time, same with the Dreadnought class submarines, they have been allotted funding, so all SKS is saying is the usual political speech to get votes.

    One thing i do think could help Labour over their term if they win will be defence, it could be a way for us to slip back into the EU with the current climate in Europe, and the world, especially if Trump gets in and the US start reducing support to Ukraine.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Pretty much a non-story

    I don’t think Keir Starmer announcing that the next Labour government will increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP, whilst simultaneously saying that the next Labour government won’t be able to do stuff it wants to do because of lack of money, is “a non-story”.

    Which presumably is why it has been widely reported.

    ransos
    Free Member

    I thought Rayner had an appeal that Starmer didn’t so will be bad to lose here but I think she will go as it seems pretty clear that she did not actually live at her primary residence

    I dunno, the Labour front bench has defended her quite strongly which I’m not sure they’d do if she’s guilty.

    kerley
    Free Member

    According to the neighbours of the houses next door to her primary residence they have never seen her at all in that period which is odd isn;t it unless she only returns to her house after dark and leaves before daylight and goes out dressed in black.

    ransos
    Free Member

    I haven’t followed it that closely, but would be surprised if Labour were wasting political capital on this. It’s the perfect opportunity for Starmer to sack her, don’t forget he’s tried to before.

    dazh
    Full Member

    It’s the perfect opportunity for Starmer to sack her

    Why would he do that? Firstly she was elected as deputy leader so he can’t sack her from that position, but he can remove her shadow cabinet responsibilities, but even then that would be stupid. Starmer’s entire campaign is that the tories are riven with factions and can’t govern effectively while labour are united and ready to take over. If he doesn’t stand by Rayner it’ll cause a rift in the party which will blow up his campaign. He’s not spent the last 12 months tiptoeing on eggshells just to lob a hand grenade into the campaign right at the end.

    rone
    Full Member

    Also – are tax affairs normally opened up after 6 years?

    Not as far as I understand them.

    argee
    Full Member

    Rayner has been smart enough to state she’d quit if she’s found to have broken the law, which I doubt is a possibility, the tories have opened up a can of worms with this, which won’t help them in the upcoming election if it’s dirt and smear campaigns being unleashed

    ratherbeintobago
    Full Member

    @rone I thought the cut off was 7 years?

    ransos
    Free Member

    Why would he do that?

    Same reason as last time, I expect.

    rone
    Full Member

     I thought the cut off was 7 years

    It’s defo six years for most tax inspections but then deliberate evasion could be 20 years but that’s not we’re talking about here I guess.

    Just not seen an answer to this given how far back we are talking.

    ransos
    Free Member

    Just not seen an answer to this given how far back we are talking.

    It’s being investigated for electoral fraud, not tax evasion, aiui.

    frankconway
    Full Member

    I believe the cut-off date for electoral fraud is 12 months.

    From any perspective, this is dead in the water.

    Poopscoop
    Full Member

    It’s being investigated for electoral fraud,

    An experty type says that with election fraud it times out after 1 year so she is highly unlikely to be prosecuted. That’s what he said in an interview on the news anyway.

    This is the way the Tories are going to fight the election though and Labour know it. They will be digging for dirt as it allowed them to plant the “see, we are all the same” seed in people’s minds. The thing is, everyone expects the Tories to be tax dodging pervs so they are teflon to it to a degree and just need to paint labour as being the same. Voter suppression in action, the British way.

    They are not the same of course.

    rone
    Full Member

    It’s being investigated for electoral fraud, not tax evasion, aiui.

    Ah. I’m not really up to speed on this one at all.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    its all the same as with the beergate bollox that was exactly 2 yeats ago just before the 2022 locals, Dan Hodges went on about it relentlessly in the daily mail, Tory MPs leapt on it and pushed the police to investigate

    was a waste of time & resources, but threw a bit of mud at starmer, melted away to nothing , as this will

    Rayner is a working class woman & the Tories are scared of her

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    I heard her in an interview on this and she was very evasive. She has legal advice that she didn’t break any laws but won’t publish it because it has certain details in it that she doesn’t want made public, unless she’s forced to but then she wants everyone to publish their tax affairs.

    The interviewer kept trying to pin her back to just publishing the legal advice, redacted if necessary and every time she widened it to the full tax account picture, so she could then refuse unless everyone does. Came across very badly.

    Two thoughts came to mind. Either something to hide, or deliberately laying a trap.

    Poopscoop
    Full Member

    kimbers
    Full Member
    its all the same as with the beergate bollox that was exactly 2 yeats ago just before the 2022 locals, Dan Hodges went on about it relentlessly in the daily mail, Tory MPs leapt on it and pushed the police to investigate

    was a waste of time & resources, but threw a bit of mud at starmer, melted away to nothing , as this will

    Rayner is a working class woman & the Tories are scared of her

    I have to agree, once the locals are over this will be largely forgotten, the news cycle will be consumed with Tory blood letting once again.

    Even so, Labour have to be whiter than white and absolutely prepared for similar attacks leading upto the GE. The Tories have had a team going over the whole of Starmer’s adult life(this was reported months ago), particularly during his time in the DPP.

    This is going to be a truly nasty fight as the Tories have bugger all to lose now. Labour have to be prepared for the fight and be as prepared to fight dirty too, if necessary.

    Again, Sunak has “billionaire tax dodging family” written all over him but that’s baked in. The sad fact is Starmer and Labour will be shouted down if there is even a scent of scandal, cheered on by the RW press.

    Id like to think Labour are ready for this but they haven’t handled Rayner’s issue as well as they could and I hope they learn from it.

    As an aside, I still think there might be blood spilt in the run up to the GE, I hope I’m wrong but there is a lot of anger being deliberately stired up out there.☹️

    somafunk
    Full Member

    Perhaps it’s just my trust of who’s been in the background advising Starmers “new-new Labour” but I imagine they wouldn’t lose much sleep of turfing her out and installing someone more amenable to their way of thinking, or if I leave my conspiracy hat on for a longer period then perhaps it’s Labour “in” crowd who’ve been leaking to the press.

    Either way I don’t trust Labour one little bit.

Viewing 40 posts - 21,601 through 21,640 (of 21,652 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.