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

[Jareth]

20 minutes ago, bickster said:

Come to Liverpool Riverside and say that, whilst you're here you can say it in Wavertree too

Both CLPs are rife with Antisemites, the older one's are mostly ex-Militant too, which actually gives some context to my entryism comment earlier

Thats Labour's own report in the pictures. Read the conclusion and then ask why they did nothing about it but accepted the report

2016 you say? I imagine Iain McNicol sat on it. 

[Awol]

3 hours ago, Jareth said:

It's quite simple for Starmer, become the anti-Jezza, big-up his and Labour's patriotism, be more competent than the Torys. All very achievable. 

This is absolutely right, imo.

Bit of trivia I’ve discovered through some pretty dry research into UK post-war defence policy: Since the 1950’s the Tories have consistently eviscerated defence spending while refusing to retrench national defence commitments. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it.

Labour on the other hand has historically been much more realistic (one might even say strategic) in its approach to the funding of national defence. 

There are outliers on both sides, Thatcher in the mid 80’s (last push in plan to financially break the Soviet Union) and Labour in ‘98 (brilliant Strategic Defence Review that Brown failed to fund), but the point is Labour actually has a much better story to tell in this area than the Tories.

That might not excite many young Labour activists very  much, but to the wider electorate it matters and is demonstrably true.

What they need (imho) is to shift the perception that Labour actually doesn’t like the UK very much. Jettisoning the toxic Corbyn brand is central to that, and really won’t take long in the context of the long election cycle if they act decisively now. 

Starmer has a plan, not everyone on the left will like it, but I think it has a good chance of putting Labour back into office. Pragmatic Labour supporters - or those on the fence - might consider giving him 12 months to see how things are looking then.

My guess, FWIW, is much better than it has for a very long time. 

[OutByEaster?]

It seems to me that the plan is to hope that a reasonable amount of traditional Labour voters follow Starmer through loyalty, those that joined in the Blair years follow on and that he can then focus on picking up what might be called "normal" Conservative voters - that's who he's wooing..

Those voters have recently begun suffering with a new thing called "shame" after witnessing what they'd hoped would be a traditional Conservative government lurch into some sort of insane fascist parody - it's left them with no one that looks sensible to look after them and all panicky about where they should be voting. What they want is a nice middle class centre right Conservative like that Mr Cameron they had before - they'll love Starmer and they'll vote for him.

 

 

 

[darrenm]

A Jewish guy incensed that he's being used as a political football by the media against Jeremy Corbyn. Of course, his view isn't legitimate to the BBC because he's on the left.

 

[HanoiVillan]

Huh, funny how it was the Jewish guy who got interrupted and no one else. Weird.

[Awol]

8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

It seems to me that the plan is to hope that a reasonable amount of traditional Labour voters follow Starmer through loyalty, those that joined in the Blair years follow on and that he can then focus on picking up what might be called "normal" Conservative voters - that's who he's wooing..

Those voters have recently begun suffering with a new thing called "shame" after witnessing what they'd hoped would be a traditional Conservative government lurch into some sort of insane fascist parody - it's left them with no one that looks sensible to look after them and all panicky about where they should be voting. What they want is a nice middle class centre right Conservative like that Mr Cameron they had before - they'll love Starmer and they'll vote for him.

First paragraph, yes. Second paragraph, no, imo.

The Tories now are are deeply uncomfortable with the reality of who is voting for them. More working class, more left wing economically and further to the right culturally than the neo-liberal Tory MPs - in the mould of the shill Cameron. Johnson's government is failing utterly to cement that new constituency he picked up in 2019. It's been clear for a while that the magic formula to win elections is left on the economy, right on values/culture. Labour have got the economic side nailed while Johnson decided to die on the hill of not feeding the poorest children during a pandemic. Ethics aside, it's comically bad politics.

Starmer doesn't need to become Cameron, he needs to demonstrate some patriotism - traditionally an unfeigned trait of the Labour Party. If you can't demonstrate a genuine affection for the country you want to lead, don't expect a majority of people to let you. Starmer gets this. 

[Xann]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

... If you can't demonstrate a genuine affection for the country...

Is yours Russia? You sold the UK down the pan.

[cheltenham_villa]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

It seems to me that the plan is to hope that a reasonable amount of traditional Labour voters follow Starmer through loyalty, those that joined in the Blair years follow on and that he can then focus on picking up what might be called "normal" Conservative voters - that's who he's wooing..

Those voters have recently begun suffering with a new thing called "shame" after witnessing what they'd hoped would be a traditional Conservative government lurch into some sort of insane fascist parody - it's left them with no one that looks sensible to look after them and all panicky about where they should be voting. What they want is a nice middle class centre right Conservative like that Mr Cameron they had before - they'll love Starmer and they'll vote for him.

 

 

 

You can stick me in this camp, despite having a working class heritage I've always been a tory voter and felt completely unrepresented by the labour party.

I had some horrific experiences with the unions which definitely havent helped.

Stammer starts to appeal as a genuine alternative as he turns the labour party into the conservatives lite.

The reality is though that not much matters until voting time which feels years away.

[Rodders]

I always thought wanting your country to be less shit, and holding past crimes to account was a patriotic thing to do. Learn and move on. Otherwise to borrow an analogy from a comedian it's like a 4 year old loving it's mum. Absolute perfection and no criticisms will be tolerated.  I hope things work with Starmer, but on the patriotic question I fail to see any examples of Corbyn actively disliking his country. I mean unless not dumbing down for the jingoists is considered disliking it. The big nationalising ideas of his final manifesto don't tend to be the beliefs of someone who isn't patriotic. Wanting it to provide effective functioning systems rather than alloing money men to profit seems more patriotic than the other way around. 

Obviously the perception amongst most of the country wasn't that. But perception was just that, not grounded in reality. 

[Jareth]

8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

It seems to me that the plan is to hope that a reasonable amount of traditional Labour voters follow Starmer through loyalty, those that joined in the Blair years follow on and that he can then focus on picking up what might be called "normal" Conservative voters - that's who he's wooing..

I think you're right - when the choice in 2024 is whoever replaces Johnson Vs Starmer, apathetic left leaning folks will vote Labour. Apart from me, I've become a radicalised honorary Welshie and will be voting to burn down English holiday homes (it's that or Stephen Doughnuts Doughty - can't do it).  

[magnkarl]

12 minutes ago, Rodders said:

I always thought wanting your country to be less shit, and holding past crimes to account was a patriotic thing to do. Learn and move on. Otherwise to borrow an analogy from a comedian it's like a 4 year old loving it's mum. Absolute perfection and no criticisms will be tolerated.  I hope things work with Starmer, but on the patriotic question I fail to see any examples of Corbyn actively disliking his country. I mean unless not dumbing down for the jingoists is considered disliking it. The big nationalising ideas of his final manifesto don't tend to be the beliefs of someone who isn't patriotic. Wanting it to provide effective functioning systems rather than alloing money men to profit seems more patriotic than the other way around. 

Obviously the perception amongst most of the country wasn't that. But perception was just that, not grounded in reality. 

I'd say taking money for going on Iranian state TV standing next to a reporter who preaches death to gay people, women with a voice and attacks on our country is pretty much actively disliking the UK and what we stand for. The guy was tone deaf to the point of actively sabotaging his own career. 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by magnkarl

[Xann]

Whoever picks it up in 2024 will find the coffers dry.

The Caymans might be able to afford to fund the results of a military review?

[Rodders]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

 The guy was tone deaf to the point of actively sabotaging his own career. 

Won't deny that. 

However I'll also add any tory ( well any, but it's mostly tory ) politician who seeks to filter money away from the exchequer and into private hands, be it through tax dodges or privatising core sectors, is quite clearly objectively more harmful to the collective capacities of the country than misguided / foolish TV appearances. Reducing our ability to feed, teach or care for our population, but allowing well placed friends a personal cash boost, is distinctly unpatriotic and you can stick most if not all of the Tory cabinet in there. But apparently a few lines of wahey let's sing jerusalem is enough to persuade mass idiots they love their country. All about the superficial.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Rodders said:

Won't deny that. 

However I'll also add any tory ( well any, but it's mostly tory ) politician who seeks to filter money away from the exchequer and into private hands, be it through tax dodges or privatising core sectors, is quite clearly objectively more harmful to the collective capacities of the country than misguided / foolish TV appearances. Reducing our ability to feed, teach or care for our population, but allowing well placed friends a personal cash boost, is distinctly unpatriotic and you can stick most if not all of the Tory cabinet in there. But apparently a few lines of wahey let's sing jerusalem is enough to persuade mass idiots they love their country. All about the superficial.

But but but... Corbyn, holocaust denial, Press TV...

Edited October 30, 2020 by snowychap

[Jareth]

Problems ahead for Starmer - 

1) He settled out of court the case Vs the John Ware panorama doc - should that or something similar come up again, the truth will out and will not be as tidy and neat as people expect.

2) The unions - they are really not happy

3) Labour may have to reinstate Corbyn for not following the handbook when suspending him 

4) Corbyn has a loyal following of folks with disposable income - his gofundme legal pot is currently £361k - will hit £400k at pace if any challenge comes in. 

5) LabourLeaks - the internal enquiry on this will be a huge flashpoint either way it goes. There are current and former Labour employees who sabotaged the last leadership - who acted to make Labour's antisemitic problem worse. They go and Starmer makes a few quite ruthless and shameless enemies. If it's a whitewash it may tip things over re a split, especially on the back of Corbyn's suspension. 

[HanoiVillan]

Quite a good article TBH, with points for all parts of the Labour party to ponder on:

Probably the most telling line (and perhaps a worthwhile reminder given that Kinnock's reputation seems to be on the rise again: 'At first when Kinnock took on his party, he appeared to acquire greater authority. Commentators praised his “courage.” But soon he noted that much of the media wanted a “shoot-out at the OK Corral” every week of the year. After he lost for the second time in 1992, he reflected that voters saw a leader at war with his party, not a prime ministerial figure.')

Edited October 30, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Rodders said:

Won't deny that. 

However I'll also add any tory ( well any, but it's mostly tory ) politician who seeks to filter money away from the exchequer and into private hands, be it through tax dodges or privatising core sectors, is quite clearly objectively more harmful to the collective capacities of the country than misguided / foolish TV appearances. Reducing our ability to feed, teach or care for our population, but allowing well placed friends a personal cash boost, is distinctly unpatriotic and you can stick most if not all of the Tory cabinet in there. But apparently a few lines of wahey let's sing jerusalem is enough to persuade mass idiots they love their country. All about the superficial.

Which is more than fair enough were this discussion on the Tories.. JC's blown up the largest party in Europe by being so blind to his own ineptitudes that it's painful to watch him try to squirm out of everything that comes his way. As many have said here I'd love for him to make his own splinter party, full of the Hattons, Livingstones and Williamsons of this world, only to watch them become even more obscure and meaningless than their failed stint at the top of the Labour party has been.

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Which is more than fair enough were this discussion on the Tories.. JC's blown up the largest party in Europe by being so blind to his own ineptitudes that it's painful to watch him try to squirm out of everything that comes his way. As many have said here I'd love for him to make his own splinter party, full of the Hattons, Livingstones and Williamsons of this world, only to watch them become even more obscure and meaningless than their failed stint at the top of the Labour party has been.

His supporters already sound like members of Creme Brulee. 

[Jareth]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

As many have said here I'd love for him to make his own splinter party, full of the Hattons, Livingstones and Williamsons of this world, only to watch them become even more obscure and meaningless than their failed stint at the top of the Labour party has been.

Unfortunately, Labour cannot lose any more vote share if they want to get back in, in 2024. This potential split is being characterised as being some old trots club - but ignores the fact that Labour under Corbyn won all the cities at the last election. Another entity along the lines of the last election, speaking for young people, renters, minorities and so on, will dent Labour's vote and block their chances. I'm expecting some concessions to the Labour left in the coming weeks.

[Demitri_C]

Once again the labour partys worst enemy is the labour party.

Might be better long term if there is a split and we get the core values of labour use to represent as opposed to this mess of a party it currently is. 

A complete and utter shambles