Jump to content

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


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

The effect is the same! Hounding out members who they don't agree with is the same regardless of how you do it. 

One is the equivalent of a verbal warning at work, the other is dismissal.  If you don't understand the difference, or think that both have the same effect, I don't know what to say.  A VONC is an expression of dissatisfaction, it is not "hounding out", and emotive rhetoric doesn't make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wazzap24 said:

It’s not about politics/policies it’s about personalities.

People won’t vote labour because of Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott etc etc. 

I won’t vote for them again whilst that lot are in charge and I was quite supportive of aspects of their manifesto. 

If they had a ‘credible’ leader, with a heavyweight shadow cabinet, they would wipe the floor with the Tories. 

You can have your ‘centre party’ but if it ends up being led by political lightweights, it’ll go nowhere. 

‘The left’ need credible people to stand up and get the message across.

This split will do nothing but help the Tories. 

 

Very true mate. The face does make a difference. Look at when bliar came in. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

When you think about who the middle class are it's not the rich it's the oens in the middle who can just about live but are made poor for paying for the rich or the ones poorer than them. 

The middle class aren't 'made poor'.

Have you ever considered, that you might just be a Tory deep down? ;)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, choffer said:

You want a new party to exist in the middle ground between Labour and Conservative? :huh:

Yes. I want someone who supports the working men and women who doesn't have much money that don't benefit for the rich and one that isn't bankrupting our country 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The middle class aren't 'made poor'.

Have you ever considered, that you might just be a Tory deep down? ;)

 

Ha ha. I did vote Conservative at last election but I hold my hands up and admit that wss a mistake. I really wants dto vote Labour but I just don't like corbyn and what he stands for. 

I really like Hilary Benn. If he was Labour leader I would have voted for him.

EDIT when I say last that was under Cameron.not may 

I refuse to vote for her. 

Edited by Demitri_C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Very true mate. The face does make a difference. Look at when bliar came in. 

A 1996 version of Blair, before the warmongering, would be brilliant for this country imo. 

He was an absolute titan in comparison to May/Corbyn or any of the current cabinet/shadow.

1996-2008 was a golden age compared to what came before and since. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wazzap24 said:

A 1996 version of Blair, before the warmongering, would be brilliant for this country imo. 

He was an absolute titan in comparison to May/Corbyn or any of the current cabinet/shadow.

1996-2008 was a golden age compared to what came before and since. 

I agree and I know unpopular but even Cameron compared to these two clowns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, peterms said:

A VONC is an expression of dissatisfaction, it is not "hounding out", and emotive rhetoric doesn't make it so.

That's why when Labour tabled a VONC in Theresa May and the tories, they were merely expressing some disatisfaction, they didn't actually want to get rid of her, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst. Split. Ever.

Quote

I will be brief about this, since that is all it deserves. The secret seven are finally out, to the surprise of no one.

They call it a split; I call it doing a Jonestown. MPs quitting Labour today have just blown their "nuclear option" prematurely, in the least convincing manner. While damaging to Labour ahead of the Brexit deadline, expeditiously for May, it chiefly harms Corbyn's opponents in Labour.

Allow me to ask the obvious questions. How many trade unions do you think will affiliate to a party founded by Chuka, Luciana, and Leslie, all recently spotted drinking the Anna Soubry kool-aid? How many councillors? How many members? Bear in mind that all of these individuals have awful relations with their local parties: hence their claim to be victims, driven out by the intolerance of yada yada. How many of these individuals would remain MPs after a general election? You could count the number in binary. Look at their breakaway statement. Is that the basis for a major realignment in British politics? Look at the issues they've chosen to split over. Brexit? They've just made it more likely that a version of May's deal will pass. Antisemitic takeover of Labour? Few outside the circumference of Westminster really believe that. Venezuela? Really?

I've said before that this is not 1981. There is no generalised anti-socialist climate in this country at the moment, no deep-rooted backlash against the unions, no pervasive sense that Labour's problems stem from having been too statist, and so on. Actually-existing-Corbynism, more Wilsonite than Bennite, is very popular. Chris Leslie merely seems aloof from reality when he bangs on about 'communism' and 'marxism'. Nor, even if conditions were similar to 1981, do these vain Blairites have the heft or hard-headedness of the old hammers of the Left.

This is not to romanticise the 'old Right'. Perhaps the most sympathetic and rigorously researched account of their struggle against the Left in the 1980s is Dianne Hayter's Fightback. Yet it is absolutely clear from her account that the 'fightback' groups (the Manifesto Group, the Labour Party Solidarity Campaign, Forward Labour, the covert St Ermins Group of trade unionists) were often vacuous in policy terms, and more interested in talking to MPs than members. They lacked the kind of heavyweight intellectual spine that the 'older Right' had gained from Crosland et al. Thatcher probably did more to secure their ultimate success than they did. Nonetheless, they had considerably more understanding of the sources of their support, more understanding of the political machinery before them, more understanding of their political moment, than this shower does.

If I were a strategist for the Labour Right, I would be screaming, waving my arms at everyone, saying "stop". Stop making noise. Stop doing things. Stop taking the initiative. If your offensives turn out to be merely elaborate training exercises for your opponents, motivating them and improving their cohesion, mobilisation and understanding of the stakes, then stop. If every single move you make turns to shit, then stop. If the 'longest suicide note in history' almost wins the election, then stop. Just stop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blandy said:

That's why when Labour tabled a VONC in Theresa May and the tories, they were merely expressing some disatisfaction, they didn't actually want to get rid of her, right?

You appreciate that the procedures and rules of the Labour Party and the House of Commons are different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, peterms said:

You appreciate that the procedures and rules of the Labour Party and the House of Commons are different?

When Labour table a VONC in the HoC, if they win it, then the tories are out? No. Because they're not. There's then another process to change the gov't (or not) - so like with the Labour Party rules, the VONC is a precursor (cf Frank Field and others) to actually getting rid. I take issue with your assertion that it's merely "dissatisfaction" - it's more than that. NO Confidence (as with the HoC) is "you're effing useless and should go" but without the legal force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

One is the equivalent of a verbal warning at work, the other is dismissal.  If you don't understand the difference, or think that both have the same effect, I don't know what to say.  A VONC is an expression of dissatisfaction, it is not "hounding out", and emotive rhetoric doesn't make it so.

The VONC foreshadows the Deselection. It would be highly unusual for a Deselection to take place without a VONC beforehand and if you'd read many of the Liverpool Labour members tweets from last week, there was only one thing they were aiming at and many of them are saying "You'd have been deselected anyway" today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

the VONC is a precursor (cf Frank Field and others) to actually getting rid.

It may or may not be followed by deselection.

Deselection can take place without any VONC.

In no sense is it a "precursor", other than that if a VONC happens, it wouldn't take place after deselection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

What is really letting the Tories back in is... The current Labour Party, its leadership and it's Brexit policy, they've well and truly messed it up

 The other thing to note here is, these seven could easily have ridden out the criticisms from within the party and remained being Labour MPs, it's the far easier option for those that want a career, they did this for a reason (or a number of reasons to be more accurate), this isn't about a mere difference of opinion

Definitely. Catweazle wants both Brexit and a painful Brexit. Same as the throbbers in the ERG and a handful of other dullards in Labour.

He wants Brexit because he believes in a barmpot version of socialism and because ideally the nastier Brexit is, the more "people will hate the tories and let me have a go". Ignoring the membership he promised not to ignore, to seek power through helping the tories and their Brexit madness. Principled politician my arse. **** wit more like

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, peterms said:

In no sense is it a "precursor"

Apart from the very clear and obvious sense that a CLP with "No confidence" in their MP is not going to reselect them, unless they've lost their tiny minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Definitely. Catweazle wants both Brexit and a painful Brexit. Same as the throbbers in the ERG and a handful of other dullards in Labour.

He wants Brexit because he believes in a barmpot version of socialism and because ideally the nastier Brexit is, the more "people will hate the tories and let me have a go". Ignoring the membership he promised not to ignore, to seek power through helping the tories and their Brexit madness. Principled politician my arse. **** wit more like

Realistically it should be ringing huge alarm bells for those in Labour that they arent showing miles ahead in the poles now. The Tories have completely **** Brexit up, **** up the transport system, **** up the benefits system, **** up the NHS.

The fact that there are poles as recent as a few weeks old showing people believe May is more capable than Corbyn shows that he's not going to get in under all but the most dire of circumstances for the country. We've got throbbers on both the Tory and Labour side who want to burn the whole thing to ashes so they can remake the country in their own fantasy image.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Definitely. Catweazle wants both Brexit and a painful Brexit. Same as the throbbers in the ERG and a handful of other dullards in Labour.

He wants Brexit because he believes in a barmpot version of socialism and because ideally the nastier Brexit is, the more "people will hate the tories and let me have a go". Ignoring the membership he promised not to ignore, to seek power through helping the tories and their Brexit madness. Principled politician my arse. **** wit more like

I mean, this is just not true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Risso said:

So you're saying that there should be a mandatory re-election process for every MP before they're allowed to recontest their seat at a General election?  Fair enough, but that's not what Momentum want to happen.  They just want to be able to deselect anybody who doesn't toe the line of Corbyn and Co.

You're half right and half wrong I think.

Momentum calls for mandatory reselection of UK Labour party MPs

Quote

Momentum, the pro-Corbyn campaign group, has called for the mandatory reselection of Labour MPs ahead of the next general election.

The grassroots political movement will propose the mechanism — used in the past by the left to purge moderate Labour MPs — at the party’s autumn conference later this month.

In a statement, the group said the rule change would “open the door to a new generation of Labour MPs”.

At present Labour MPs do not routinely face a formal challenge from their own party ahead of elections. Labour’s more moderate MPs believe any process that allows such a challenge would be used to depose those on the right of the party, who have not fully supported Jeremy Corbyn since he took over as party leader in 2015....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbyn's not going to be PM, too many people don't like him personally and it's probably a significant part of the reason Labour aren't doing better. But there's still a groundswell of support it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â