Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

We KNOW that part of the AS problem was the old guard causing issues - we know a minority of the Corbyn era was also AS - and I mean a minority. Starmer is clearly attempting a new labour campaign - he's probably not wrong - but it ignores the landscape since 2000. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jareth said:

We KNOW that part of the AS problem was the old guard causing issues - we know a minority of the Corbyn era was also AS - and I mean a minority. Starmer is clearly attempting a new labour campaign - he's probably not wrong - but it ignores the landscape since 2000. 

Ok tell us what Starmer should have done, then follow that and say what effect it would have had in the media And what effect it would have had on the AS review!

Starmer has taken the only real course of action open to him, like I said, it's almost too perfect a scenario, like its been set up to push people with opinions like yours buttons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

Ok tell us what Starmer should have done, then follow that and say what effect it would have had in the media And what effect it would have had on the AS review!

Starmer has taken the only real course of action open to him, like I said, it's almost too perfect a scenario, like its been set up to push people with opinions like yours buttons

OK - so what exactly was AS about what she did?

We must KNOW the offence if we are to be outraged. 

I'm clearly spitting - but what the actual F do we support or condemn? 

Edited by Jareth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I nearly posted the Sugarman thread yesterday. Then noticed basically who he worked for. Then saw counter arguments to the counter arguments. Then decided I was disappearing down that same rabbit hole again of basically having to decide who’s facts I want to believe. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I nearly posted the Sugarman thread yesterday. Then noticed basically who he worked for. Then saw counter arguments to the counter arguments. Then decided I was disappearing down that same rabbit hole again of basically having to decide who’s facts I want to believe.

Yes, I get that.

Edit:

It just seemed like a clear explanation of why it could be viewed as an issue.

On the Long-Bailey thing, I also saw stuff that said this was just one straw along with similar comments to those that have already been posted about it being an expedient action for Starmer to take.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

At the start of April those two top figures were 53/28

Mid May they were 48/33

end of June and it’s 43/39

No wonder the clown is doing cock push ups for the Daily Mail.

How many cock push ups can he do?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

At the start of April those two top figures were 53/28

Mid May they were 48/33

end of June and it’s 43/39

No wonder the clown is doing cock push ups for the Daily Mail.

Starmer is also polling above the clown as preferred PM now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Don't know what they're doing.

'ostentatiously having every possible position on an issue'.

You thought that was the correct thinking when Cobyn did it

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Silly, it's ok. Jeremy Corbyn didn't do it.

Corbyn did do it, it was silly then just as it's silly now

The Dr Rosena one and the Angela Rayner one's however aren't incompatible positions, The Shadow Chancellor however, needs her bumps felt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

'ostentatiously having every possible position on an issue'.

One of them wants people to go out to support all types of local businesses - she specifically didn't say anything about "hit the pubs". One of them says opening the pubs at 6 am is daft and one of them says NHS people won't be going to the pub - implying health workers think opening the pubs today is daft.

All three of them have a point - the NHS people have for days been saying opening the pubs for the first time on a Saturday is not a good idea. I can't believe anyone thinks opening them at 6 am is a good idea (there were cues here outside one at 7 am - I mean that's mad). Supporting local business is fair enough isn't it - she absolutely didn't say hit the pubs, and she did say she wanted people to behave correctly and so on. Ideally (for complete consistency with the others she might have mentioned opening at 6 am and NHS concerns. But it's clearly not a case of "every possible position" or "don't know what they're doing".

The video is here

It's not nearly as inconsistent and mixed message as alleged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You either think pubs are safe to be open, indoors, or you don't. I don't really see what difference it makes whether they open at 6 or 9 or 12 - people who want to get smashed will do so anyway. You either think it's appropriate and safe for people to have to go back to work in that environment, or you don't.

The context of the question was pubs. That's what he asked about. If she wanted to say that a variety of other local businesses are safe, but pubs aren't, then she should have said that. But she didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

The context of the question was pubs. That's what he asked about. If she wanted to say that a variety of other local businesses are safe, but pubs aren't, then she should have said that. But she didn't.

Possibly, as I said "Ideally (for complete consistency with the others she might have mentioned opening at 6 am and NHS concerns" but I thought she was asked if she was going to the pub, and she basically said "no, but other people supporting local businesses was a good". Sure she slightly dodged the question.

The thing is I don't believe anyone really criticised Corbyn or his leadership because (say) 3 different Labour MPs had slightly different takes on an issue of the day. It's not "Labour policy" we're talking about here, it's individual MPs being asked or offering a view on a part of a wider thing the government has done, in opening up a new categories of business again. If anyone expects all MPs to hold an identical view on that, when they're one still working for the NHS, from Business and from Secretary of state shadow role, then they're perhaps looking for something, anything, to criticise.

I'm not a Labour supporter or member or voter (for a fair while) - I'm looking at what was said and what is claimed - "Don't know what they're doing...ostentatiously having every possible position on an issue" and just can't see that is supported by what's been said by the MPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, blandy said:

The thing is I don't believe anyone really criticised Corbyn or his leadership because (say) 3 different Labour MPs had slightly different takes on an issue of the day. It's not "Labour policy" we're talking about here, it's individual MPs being asked or offering a view on a part of a wider thing the government has done, in opening up a new categories of business again. If anyone expects all MPs to hold an identical view on that, when they're one still working for the NHS, from Business and from Secretary of state shadow role, then they're perhaps looking for something, anything, to criticise.

This is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think it's a useful frame to talk about three shadow frontbenchers talking about this topic as if they are members of the public giving vox pops on the street. They have had all week to work out a line on 'should the pubs be open, yes or no' and they conspicuously haven't agreed on one. This is not 'looking for something, anything, to criticise': people are having to go to work today because of this rule change. Many of those people will be BAME, or immunocompromised, or will live with people who are, and might be at greater risk of the virus.

Allin-Khan's tweet implies, as you said yourself, that people who know about the virus, doctors, immulogists and the rest, think it is not safe for pubs to be open. If she and they are right, then this decision could have serious negative consequences and if Labour think she is right, it is their moral duty to oppose the government, not with a 'well on the one hand this but on the other hand that' but simply and clearly. On the contrary, if the party think she is wrong, and that the risk is low, then it would help 'local businesses' a lot more if members of the shadow frontbench weren't implying otherwise on twitter. So they need to have a consistent answer to the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pictures of Farage in a pub today.

Bellend hasn’t been back from the US for 2 weeks.

First day of pubs open and he’s skipped quarantine.

Clearly an alcoholic as well as a huge bellend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â