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

[Jareth]

These hasty rule changes to shut out members from future leadership votes had been commented on as a sign that starmer expects to be off soon. If the guardian, the last bastion for whimsy left hinting Labour fans, decides starmers essay is fluff, then he’s done. Honestly looks like time for a new leader. I’d back John McDonnell as the only lefty id want in charge - god knows who from the right would be put up. 

[darrenm]

With his essay that basically says "privatisation is good yay!" and positions the Labour Party under him as blue Labour, do all those who were saying he hasn't technically broken his pledges because he hasn't announced policy yet feel pretty peeved that they were conned? I sure do.

[bickster]

6 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Ah yeah sorry, it’s the left’s fault for not bending over, parting its own cheeks and allowing itself to be shafted all the way back to the stone ages. Again.

The opportunity was there for compromise. Yes there are nutters in every wing of the party but I can tell you for a fact that all the vast majority of people on the left of it want is some semblance of progressive policy and not to be purged for daring to hold the man to his own pledges. At this stage that clearly isn’t going to happen, so any **** policy at all would be a start. 

They can do all that in their own party, they should form one. I seriously think it would be better for the mental health of the country. Trouble is and history bears this out, that there wouldn't be one left party, there's be about 24. In fact they could leave Labour and join one of the myriad of left wing parties that already align with their views but they don't

As an outsider who rarely votes Labour any more (I did last time out of desperation) I pick the party that most aligns with my views when it comes to election time, that is what most people (think) they do or as Blandy says the party they think is most competent to run the country. Right now, the competency test is being severely failed by Labour because of the infighting. No one wants a party like that to be the government

I've said it before, many times. Starmers job is the same as Kinnocks was. To rebuild the party after a disasterous election result by the previous left wing leader. This really is history repeating itself, the Foot / Corbyn, Kinnock / Starmer parrallels are uncanny. Starmer is having to rid the party of the left to make it electable. Starmer will fail to be PM just like Kinnock did but he'll set the party up if he's allowed, to be electable again in the future

The electorate don't really give a rats ass about internal party democracy, they ultimately just want a competent government with the right policies

[bickster]

53 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I’d back John McDonnell as the only lefty id want in charge - god knows who from the right would be put up. 

Quote

It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA

Wiki

With a history of opinions like that and none of Corbyn's charisma he'd take Labour to depths even his mate couldn't. A self confessed Marxist, he shouldn't even be in the Labour Party

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, darrenm said:

, do all those who were saying he hasn't technically broken his pledges because he hasn't announced policy yet feel pretty peeved that they were conned? I sure do.

Is that referring to me Darren?  If it is, then no, not at all. My posts on people saying he’s reneged on his pledges have been to ask “which ones and how”, (as a genuine question), to also express my disappointment at the absence of party policies and to express my opinion that I thought and expected that once they actually get some policies, then they won’t tally with his pledges, fully. For example:

On 21/09/2021 at 09:48, blandy said:

That's not (yet) "rowed back on his 10 pledges" really then? I mean I suspect he will and will have to

I think he’s floundering in a thick soup of various savoury and unsavoury ingredients, some of his own making, some not. But that’s another question.

[Jareth]

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

Wiki

With a history of opinions like that and none of Corbyn's charisma he'd take Labour to depths even his mate couldn't. A self confessed Marxist, he shouldn't even be in the Labour Party

Corbyn had charisma? McDonnell would be a force. Also, cut and paste X is a Marxist or antiisemite and therefore shouldn't lead the Labour party - unless X is Wes Streeting of course. I now see why the lefties were staying in the party in the face of all this hostility - Starmer and the rightwing1990s tribute act have had their chance and come up so very very hollow, and most people saw this swift end coming. 

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

Corbyn had charisma? McDonnell would be a force. Also, cut and paste X is a Marxist or antiisemite and therefore shouldn't lead the Labour party - unless X is Wes Streeting of course. I now see why the lefties were staying in the party in the face of all this hostility - Starmer and the rightwing1990s tribute act have had their chance and come up so very very hollow, and most people saw this swift end coming. 

The Labour Party is not and never has been a Marxist Political Party. John McDonnell says he's a Marxist. There are plenty of Marxist parties out there

Corbyn has the charisma of a nice old man in comparison to John McDonnell, yes he has has charisma

I think you misunderstand the timescale of making the Labour Party electable again, it's a good number of election cycles. Expecting it to be like a Pot Noodle is a bit optimistic to say the least

[Jon]

Keith is a knut.  

That's my only kontribution 

[Jareth]

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

The Labour Party is not and never has been a Marxist Political Party. John McDonnell says he's a Marxist. There are plenty of Marxist parties out there

Corbyn has the charisma of a nice old man in comparison to John McDonnell, yes he has has charisma

I think you misunderstand the timescale of making the Labour Party electable again, it's a good number of election cycles. Expecting it to be like a Pot Noodle is a bit optimistic to say the least

It occurred to me during Corbyn's era that the future is going to be a generational divide, not right or left as it has been labelled - right and left with all their past baggage that is. Marxist is not a rude word to folks under 45, quite the opposite. Labour had a 'chance' to not have to wait a decade for power when Starmer unveiled Corbyn;s policies but under his clean leadership - then U turned spectacularly - chance lost. Young folks are completely disenfranchised, disadvantaged, have nobody representing them in politics and yet are the future of the country. The next Labour party that does well will recognise this - it may take a while for xenophobic aged England to die away but it certainly will. 

[HanoiVillan]

Since we were talking about austerity yesterday, I note with sadness that Keith's 14,000 magnum opus pledges to 'repair the public finances', in case anyone was wondering. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

They can do all that in their own party, they should form one. 

This demonstrates either a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Labour Party or an intentional ignorance to it. It literally says “democratic socialist party” on the membership card.

What do you think the average left leaning member of the party actually want? Gulags on every street corner? Can we not have a sensible conversation revolving around reality?

[peterw]

The biggest problem for Labour is the sniping coming from those that believe Labour should look like the Party it was 100 years ago. As said above Labour has had two left-centric leaders leading to being trounced at General Elections. Clearly, the populace do not want socialism in the soft form presented by the Labour Party and those within the movement should get to grips with that and find a way to make Labour electable whilst still retaining its core tenets of equality and the richest few shouldering the burden for the poorest in society. It's how Labour do it that is key.

I always smile at the sniping too that Labour is losing its heartland, and it isn't representing the working-classes under Starmer (similar has been said about Kinnock/Blair/Miliband) and because they are either called 'Sir' or from private educated backgrounds they simply won't 'get it' and are Tory-Lite. Why? There seems to be a confusion at best as to what working-class means or who the working-classes are. Again, its not those that were short of representation when the Labour Party was formed, but working-classes may be more upwardly mobile now than in any time in history - do they not get a voice in Labour's direction? There has always seemed to be a reverse snobbishness that you can only be a Labour person if you understand struggling at the wrong end economically and socially. Again, why? Surely things would be better the more Sirs and privately educated people that want a fairer society than is currently on offer. Even Lenin argued for a vanguard system.

But too many Labour supporters, or traditional supporters shall we say, want to have their ball and say 'no, you don't look or sound like us, so we don't want you'. Its almost like wanting to wallow in your own down trodden misery in order to prove your hard earned put-upon credentials. It doesn't wash and is what is holding the Labour Party back. 

If I had 50p and someone asked me to swap it for £5 I'd take it. If  I had a 1 bedroom flat and someone offered me a four bedroom house, I'd take it. If I had a week in Weston-Super-Mare and someone offered me 2 weeks in the Bahamas, I'd take it. If I just had my run of the mill life and someone offered me privilege and potential, I'd take it, knowing that with it I'd do as much as I could to make things better. Starmer has been dealt a hand where the most fake of PMs is currently sitting in Parliament with a huge majority on the back of getting Brexit done. He was repeatedly beasting Johnson at PMQs and in the polls when the Pandemic over took events and the vaccination roll out has deafened all ears to this incompetent Government and PM.

Starmer needs to take control of the Labour Party in order to make it electable again. Which is why the rank and file shouldn't necessarily vote for leaders and if they don't like it they can avoid voting for Labour representatives at any election as a way of making their voices heard. 

[peterw]

11 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This demonstrates either a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Labour Party or an intentional ignorance to it. It literally says “democratic socialist party” on the membership card.

What do you think the average left leaning member of the party actually want? Gulags on every street corner? Can we not have a sensible conversation revolving around reality?

And North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Just because an entity has some words, it doesn't make them accurate.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 minute ago, peterw said:

And North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Just because an entity has some words, it doesn't make them accurate.

Leaving the ridiculous gaslighting out of it for a second, do you think it is healthy for both major parties in Westminster to be firmly on the Right? 

[peterw]

1 minute ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Leaving the ridiculous gaslighting out of it for a second, do you think it is healthy for both major parties in Westminster to be firmly on the Right? 

Well I'll leave out your puzzling definition of gaslighting...there is only one party that is centre-right. The other major party is centre-left. Unless you can point otherwise. I'll also point to some policies from the centre-right Party that look broadly left if it helps redress your balance. Anyway, which policies from the centre-left major Party are you referring to?

[Jareth]

11 minutes ago, peterw said:

The biggest problem for Labour is the sniping coming from those that believe Labour should look like the Party it was 100 years ago. As said above Labour has had two left-centric leaders leading to being trounced at General Elections. Clearly, the populace do not want socialism in the soft form presented by the Labour Party and those within the movement should get to grips with that and find a way to make Labour electable whilst still retaining its core tenets of equality and the richest few shouldering the burden for the poorest in society. It's how Labour do it that is key.

I always smile at the sniping too that Labour is losing its heartland, and it isn't representing the working-classes under Starmer (similar has been said about Kinnock/Blair/Miliband) and because they are either called 'Sir' or from private educated backgrounds they simply won't 'get it' and are Tory-Lite. Why? There seems to be a confusion at best as to what working-class means or who the working-classes are. Again, its not those that were short of representation when the Labour Party was formed, but working-classes may be more upwardly mobile now than in any time in history - do they not get a voice in Labour's direction? There has always seemed to be a reverse snobbishness that you can only be a Labour person if you understand struggling at the wrong end economically and socially. Again, why? Surely things would be better the more Sirs and privately educated people that want a fairer society than is currently on offer. Even Lenin argued for a vanguard system.

But too many Labour supporters, or traditional supporters shall we say, want to have their ball and say 'no, you don't look or sound like us, so we don't want you'. Its almost like wanting to wallow in your own down trodden misery in order to prove your hard earned put-upon credentials. It doesn't wash and is what is holding the Labour Party back. 

If I had 50p and someone asked me to swap it for £5 I'd take it. If  I had a 1 bedroom flat and someone offered me a four bedroom house, I'd take it. If I had a week in Weston-Super-Mare and someone offered me 2 weeks in the Bahamas, I'd take it. If I just had my run of the mill life and someone offered me privilege and potential, I'd take it, knowing that with it I'd do as much as I could to make things better. Starmer has been dealt a hand where the most fake of PMs is currently sitting in Parliament with a huge majority on the back of getting Brexit done. He was repeatedly beasting Johnson at PMQs and in the polls when the Pandemic over took events and the vaccination roll out has deafened all ears to this incompetent Government and PM.

Starmer needs to take control of the Labour Party in order to make it electable again. Which is why the rank and file shouldn't necessarily vote for leaders and if they don't like it they can avoid voting for Labour representatives at any election as a way of making their voices heard. 

Hey man we've all been there, needing to rant and get it off our chests. But this comes across a bit insecure, as though you can see Starmer's reign slipping away unnoticed in large by like, the country. I'll just take you back a sec to the fact that the Labour membership you've described here in unsavoury terms, voted for the 'Sir' to lead their party and not for a lefty like RLB. Would be worth asking the question - what's happened since then?

[peterw]

A rant? Hardly. not sure what you're getting at but I'll try and follow. 

 

Starmer's reign slipping away? Yes, quite possibly it will. I do not think he'll be PM and I think he'll be needed more to try and make Labour electable for those that follow. It could be an Andy Burnham (although I doubt it), or even a David Miliband (a bit late now), or Angela Rayner who would be an excellent leader. I also like Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips and Labour could lead with women in the top job. 

As for the Labour leadership - yes they voted for him - but mainly as a reaction to Corbyn so the left-wing vote was going to get drowned out on this occasion. It was also worth noting that there were very few what could be called 'serious' candidates in terms of who would look acceptable to the electorate.

 

What's happened since then? A pandemic.

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, peterw said:

A rant? Hardly. not sure what you're getting at but I'll try and follow. 

 

Starmer's reign slipping away? Yes, quite possibly it will. I do not think he'll be PM and I think he'll be needed more to try and make Labour electable for those that follow. It could be an Andy Burnham (although I doubt it), or even a David Miliband (a bit late now), or Angela Rayner who would be an excellent leader. I also like Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips and Labour could lead with women in the top job. 

As for the Labour leadership - yes they voted for him - but mainly as a reaction to Corbyn so the left-wing vote was going to get drowned out on this occasion. It was also worth noting that there were very few what could be called 'serious' candidates in terms of who would look acceptable to the electorate.

 

What's happened since then? A pandemic.

I've heard this thing about Starmer making Labour more electable, but I just don't get it, given he's attempting politics from the late 90s and his ham fisted attempts to bounce the party into changing its leadership election rules is going to fail and damage Starmer and his allies to the extent they're actually increasing the likelihood of a left wing leader getting in at the next attempt - you know, someone who believes in one vote per person. It's not the pandemic that has damaged Starmer, it's the people around him, and Starmer himself - turns out the forensic lawyer is actually a political featherweight.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

15 minutes ago, peterw said:

Well I'll leave out your puzzling definition of gaslighting...there is only one party that is centre-right. The other major party is centre-left. Unless you can point otherwise. I'll also point to some policies from the centre-right Party that look broadly left if it helps redress your balance. Anyway, which policies from the centre-left major Party are you referring to?

It's not that puzzling. You asserted that I believe the Labour Party should be the party of the left solely because it says so on the membership card. That is not the case. It should be the party 'of the left' because it is the party of the workers. The working classes are predominantly left leaning, even if they say they're not, the vast majority want progressive policies. Every poll I have ever seen indicates this. Right now, in particular, the workers want these wildly progressive policies like a properly funded National Health Service and adequate sick pay during a global pandemic. They want a party that is going to go to bat for theses things. The Labour Party is not acting like that party. 

I don't want The Labour Party to be like it was 100 years ago. I don't even want it to be like it was 4 years ago, although that was clearly better than whatever this bilge is. At least those losers had policies that might lead to something good. Ultimately I just want The Labour Party to do the right thing, strive for equal opportunity, drive a stake into the heart the rocket polishers who want less of that kind of thing and at least pretend to give a **** about people who are less fortunate. Instead, we've got whatever bilge this is.

If you're blaming this total capitulation on the left, you are a major part of the problem. Not just with the Labour Party, but with society as a whole. 

[peterw]

2 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

It's not that puzzling. You asserted that I believe the Labour Party should be the party of the left solely because it says so on the membership card. That is not the case. It should be the party 'of the left' because it is the party of the workers. The working classes are predominantly left leaning, even if they say they're not, the vast majority want progressive policies. Every poll I have ever seen indicates this. Right now, in particular, the workers want these wildly progressive policies like a properly funded National Health Service and adequate sick pay during a global pandemic. They want a party that is going to go to bat for theses things. The Labour Party is not acting like that party. 

I don't want The Labour Party to be like it was 100 years ago. I don't even want it to be like it was 4 years ago, although that was clearly better than whatever this bilge is. At least those losers had policies that might lead to something good. Ultimately I just want The Labour Party to do the right thing, strive for equal opportunity, drive a stake into the heart the rocket polishers who want less of that kind of thing and at least pretend to give a **** about people who are less fortunate. Instead, we've got whatever bilge this is.

If you're blaming this total capitulation on the left, you are a major part of the problem. Not just with the Labour Party, but with society as a whole. 

I didn't assert that you believed anything and I'm sure you'll see that from the Post that I made. I made no reference to you or your beliefs as I know neither what they are nor were they particular relevant in pointing out printed words do not always mean  a great deal. 

I think you've then fallen into the nicely packaged trap of assumptions - what exactly are "progressive policies"? Not sure that the Labour Party of 4 years ago were better than is on offer now, although I'm looking more at opinion polls than just personal opinion. Last polls (or last I saw) had Labour ahead - they weren't 4 years ago, or at any time under Corbyn's tenure. 

This total capitulation (although I have absolutely no idea what this means) is indeed the fault of the left, as well as the right-wing media that allowed the left to be too easily persuaded, but in times of economic depression its easier to blame the immigrants for the world's ills. It happened in European politics in the 200s and 30s and saw the rise of fascism. Disappointingly then, as with now with many Brexit votes (not to mention voting Conservative in the last GE), the right-wing agenda garnered a lot of support from those left leaning working-classes that you mention.

The world has changed and the Tories always recognise opportunism is better than bedrocked principles when it comes to power. The left can bang their righteous drum as loudly, morally, and ethically as they want, but with power it means nothing. 

But, as you say, it's, me peter w, that is a major part of the problem.