bickster Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jareth said: 'Slightly more honest politics' - I can actually see that on a Labour flyer in the not too distant future, inspirational stuff. It wasn't intended as a campaign slogan and I suspect you knew that too, so it makes me wonder why you bothered to pick on just that from the post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, bickster said: It wasn't intended as a campaign slogan and I suspect you knew that too, so it makes me wonder why you bothered to pick on just that from the post? Well I did start drafting something about the rest but considered it's a case of not seeing eye to eye and couldn't fathom how to phrase anything that would change your mind. The thing I always come back to is that the cities voted Labour, folks under 40 voted Labour. These weren't trots or even trot supporters, they were just moved to vote Labour by a hopeful message and an evening up of inequality. These people are still out there - and it's an opportunity for someone like Layla Moran to sweep them up if she leads the Dems. Starmer has to do certain things to put clear water between him and the old guard, and he needs to gain the support of the towns - as well as the cities, so he has to tread carefully down the middle. The problem is, I don't believe A he can out Tory a Tory, B he will and has disillusioned a lot of folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 5 hours ago, Jareth said: all of those people who gave money to Labour the last 5 years, have seen that cash spent on paying off people who caused trouble and worked against Labour getting in (whatever the rights or wrongs). An alternative reading would be that they have seen cash spent recompensing people who were labour supporters and members of the Labour party but were libelled and suffered damage caused by Labour, for whistle-blowing on a problem, in an effort to discredit what they were revealing. The payments came as a direct consequence of Labour figures smearing them. If whistle-blowers and journalists are attacked from revealing information, then many Labour people would be appalled at that - The internet publisher Julian Assange published information showing the US did some bad things, and his treatment was condemned as "an attempt to silence" etc. and "victimisation" and "rape charges were made up and false" by many of the same people who seem not to have quite the same take on the treatment of whistle-blowers rather closer to home. Hypocrisy isn't unique to any section of society or politics, but it is rather more prevalent in some areas than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 17 minutes ago, blandy said: An alternative reading would be that they have seen cash spent recompensing people who were labour supporters and members of the Labour party but were libelled and suffered damage caused by Labour, for whistle-blowing on a problem, in an effort to discredit what they were revealing. The payments came as a direct consequence of Labour figures smearing them. If whistle-blowers and journalists are attacked from revealing information, then many Labour people would be appalled at that - The internet publisher Julian Assange published information showing the US did some bad things, and his treatment was condemned as "an attempt to silence" etc. and "victimisation" and "rape charges were made up and false" by many of the same people who seem not to have quite the same take on the treatment of whistle-blowers rather closer to home. Hypocrisy isn't unique to any section of society or politics, but it is rather more prevalent in some areas than others. Well for that to hold water we need to see the facts laid out in full. Labour has legal advice that it would win the libel action, but we won't know because it was settled. That report into Labour leaks will hopefully be honest and we can then judge if these people were victims or provocateurs - certainly nobody has disputed what was revealed in Labour leaks as being fictional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 42 minutes ago, blandy said: An alternative reading would be that they have seen cash spent recompensing people who were labour supporters and members of the Labour party Not 'supporters' enough to actually want to win an election, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Jareth said: Labour has legal advice that it would win the libel action, No. Not quite right. Labour had legal advice that they had a strong case, not that they would win. The staff had legal advice too, that said the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: Not 'supporters' enough to actually want to win an election, obviously. Ah, not supportive enough. Where have I heard that line before? Perhaps in the context of Brexit. Anyway, they started out as supporters, but clearly some became massively disillusioned, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, blandy said: No. Not quite right. Labour had legal advice that they had a strong case, not that they would win. The staff had legal advice too, that said the opposite. Fair enough - we'll never know. I hope the inquiry into the leaked report is thorough. I did myself watch the panorama doc, whatever side you're on, it clearly used extracts of material to fit its narrative, objective it was not. Let alone the daft music and tone straight out of a horror film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Jareth said: The problem is, I don't believe A he can out Tory a Tory, B he will and has disillusioned a lot of folks He doesn’t need to and shouldn’t and won’t try to out-Tory the tories. I don’t think the country likes the tories, overall. The country wants competent, fair, acting in British interests, safe government. That’s what he and Labour have to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: Not 'supporters' enough to actually want to win an election, obviously. That argument can easily be turned onto The Pot Bangers of Wavertree et all, who wanted nothing more than to oust their MPs in a parliament where an election could have been called at any time (and was twice). They weren't looking to win elections, they were looking to win the Labour Party (as were the other side) And until such times that the "Broad Church" becomes two narrower churches, this will always be the case. Both sides know it deep down too but they don't care. Both sides need the brand and neither side will split away because without the brand they know they are nothing. Like I said earlier, it's been going on since the '60s and probably longer It should also be noted that the only time in that timeframe that there has been a Labour Govt of any significant length, was as we all know The Blair era which came in the wake of the Militant Purge and the Labour Party did indeed become for a while that narrower church, albeit whilst still accepting the Skinner, Corbyn and the gang on the fringes (but making sure they stayed on the fringes) The broad church actually contributes heavily to Labour's lack of electoral appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 36 minutes ago, blandy said: No. Not quite right. Labour had legal advice that they had a strong case, not that they would win. The staff had legal advice too, that said the opposite. Not trying to argue, but where have you seen this legal advice (on either side)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 27 minutes ago, blandy said: He doesn’t need to and shouldn’t and won’t try to out-Tory the tories. I don’t think the country likes the tories, overall. The country wants competent, fair, acting in British interests, safe government. That’s what he and Labour have to offer. I think the country tend to like the tories a fair bit, given they've been voted in a few times. They seem to like the tories at the moment despite the monumental loss of life and complete incompetence and alarmingly right wing tendancies - still leading Labour by about 8 points. I wonder what it will take for the country to stop liking the tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 10 minutes ago, bickster said: That argument can easily be turned onto The Pot Bangers of Wavertree et all, who wanted nothing more than to oust their MPs in a parliament where an election could have been called at any time (and was twice). They weren't looking to win elections, they were looking to win the Labour Party (as were the other side) And the counter to that, in turn, is that after Corbyn won an overwhelming mandate in 2015, a significant number of Labour MPs and other senior figures in the party made clear that they would not cooperate, and would not treat his leadership as legitimate. They did that through interviews, through leaks, through a leadership contest, and through a series of actions on an institutional level that hampered the 2017 election campaign. It's hardly a surprise that supporters of the leadership didn't welcome this, or want those MPs to be in place to collapse any future Labour government, so . . . 14 minutes ago, bickster said: And until such times that the "Broad Church" becomes two narrower churches, this will always be the case. Both sides know it deep down too but they don't care. Both sides need the brand and neither side will split away because without the brand they know they are nothing. Like I said earlier, it's been going on since the '60s and probably longer It should also be noted that the only time in that timeframe that there has been a Labour Govt of any significant length, was as we all know The Blair era which came in the wake of the Militant Purge and the Labour Party did indeed become for a while that narrower church, albeit whilst still accepting the Skinner, Corbyn and the gang on the fringes (but making sure they stayed on the fringes) The broad church actually contributes heavily to Labour's lack of electoral appeal . . . this analysis has a lot of truth to it, even if it's not the full picture. The ultimate failure of the Corbyn era, then, is that at the end of it, Labour has not been won by the left at all. The idea that a 'purge' happened is laughable, and a comparison to Johnson's remaking of the Conservative Party in his own image demonstrates what that would actually look like. By contrast, the left of Labour does not control the NEC, and is now hampered by a change to its electoral system; mandatory reselection did not happen, and further moves towards party democracy will not happen; the PLP still overwhelmingly leans right, as does nearly all of Labour's local government tier; Starmer has made clear that he will tack to the right. Obviously it's true that Blair won two big victories with a shrunken, rump left that had no power. The left fragmented, drifting to the Lib Dems or to apathy. Starmer's challenge may well be to achieve the same again. His problem is that the UK of the 1990s and the UK of today are not particularly similar. In particular, he's not going to be able to count on winning 90% of Scottish seats at any point. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Not trying to argue, but where have you seen this legal advice (on either side)? @Chindieposted Corbz saying his opinion from facebooks was that labour layers had told Corbz that... and was it last year that the case was submitted - the lawyer for the workers said something about it being a clear case of them being libelled. So if you believe Corbyn’s post, there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: And the counter to that, in turn, is that after Corbyn won an overwhelming mandate in 2015, a significant number of Labour MPs and other senior figures in the party made clear that they would not cooperate, and would not treat his leadership as legitimate. They did that through interviews, through leaks, through a leadership contest, and through a series of actions on an institutional level that hampered the 2017 election campaign. It's hardly a surprise that supporters of the leadership didn't welcome this, or want those MPs to be in place to collapse any future Labour government, so . . . Of course they did, this is the point I've been trying to make. Two sides and both as bad as each other. Their ultimate goal is to win the Labour Party not elections. Hence my other side comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The ultimate failure of the Corbyn era, then, is that at the end of it, Labour has not been won by the left at all. It’s much worse than that. After 10 years of disastrous Tory govt, Labour got an almighty shoeing in the election, which could quite easily take another 10 years to recover from, while the tories will carry on screwing things up for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The idea that a 'purge' happened is laughable Erm, I'm sorry, it's factual. I was actually active in the Labour Party, in Liverpool when it happened. I knew people who were expelled for membership of Militant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 52 minutes ago, Jareth said: I think the country tend to like the tories a fair bit, given they've been voted in a few times I suppose that’s a fair reply. My take is that firstly it doesn’t like them, it tolerates them in the misguided view that they know what they are doing with stuff like the economy, so being a bunch of gits is kind of accepted as a price to pay, and secondly that they get elected because they’re pretty much the only choice for right leaning folk, whereas the left has multiple parties, so there’s no single block to oppose them. I wouldn’t want that, actually, I’d like a voting and electoral system that gives parties seats based on their level of public support, not on the current safe seat constituency rot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 hours ago, bickster said: Erm, I'm sorry, it's factual. I was actually active in the Labour Party, in Liverpool when it happened. I knew people who were expelled for membership of Militant Sorry, perhaps my wording wasn't very clear, but I was talking about the last five years, not the 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 24, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: Sorry, perhaps my wording wasn't very clear, but I was talking about the last five years, not the 1980s. Well I'm sorry too because I presumed you were referencing my mention of the purge under Kinnock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts