Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

The New Leader of the Labour Party


Numero Veinticinco
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

So, essentially, a purge of socialists is what’s happening? 

 

It looks like it, and it's not really a controversial view at this point I don't think. I think the shadow cabinet is being moved further to the right and "Corbynism" (or socialism) is to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

So, essentially, a purge of socialists is what’s happening? 


Starmer must be the wrong kind of socialist. 
 

Burgon is an absolute fucking moron. Genuinely thick as fuck and a terrible media performer.
 

Don’t think I’ll ever get tired of posting these. 
 

 

 


Oh, and his main problem wasn’t calling Zionism out, it was lying about it and being found out. Because, you know, he’s thick. 
 

 

I’ve no idea why people seems surprised Starmer is getting rid of a lot of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and putting his own people in. Pretty obvious it would happen and it’s only right any new leader picks whoever they think is most capable. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

It looks like it, and it's not really a controversial view at this point I don't think. I think the shadow cabinet is being moved further to the right and "Corbynism" (or socialism) is to blame.

I don’t think it’s controversial, just weird and wrong. I do have a follow up question though, which is why would Corbyn have somebody like Starmer in his shadow cabinet if he was so opposed to socialism? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I don’t think it’s controversial, just weird and wrong. I do have a follow up question though, which is why would Corbyn have somebody like Starmer in his shadow cabinet if he was so opposed to socialism? 

 

Probably because he thought he'd be a good shadow Brexit secretary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Probably because he thought he'd be a good shadow Brexit secretary?

But surely he'd prefer a socialist, which according to you Starmer is trying to get rid of. So, unless there's nobody who could have done the job who is a socialist, then isn't Corbyn guilty of putting non-socialists (I'm assuming you don't think he's a socialist) in top positions, which is what you say Starmer is doing. 

 

I dunno, mate. It seems much more likely that he's getting rid of people with the stench of Corbyn's failure out and putting new faces in. Maybe he thinks they did a bad job, maybe he thinks going in with the same bunch that just lost and people didn't trust to run the country is a bad idea. I'd believe pretty much anything before the idea that he's an anti-socialist trying to break down the fabric of the party in order to make it Red Conservatives. It's... silly, in my view. It sounds like the political tactics used by Galloway and his comrades are convincing you he's some sort of right-winger hell bent on destroying the party. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

But surely he'd prefer a socialist, which according to you Starmer is trying to get rid of. So, unless there's nobody who could have done the job who is a socialist, then isn't Corbyn guilty of putting non-socialists (I'm assuming you don't think he's a socialist) in top positions, which is what you say Starmer is doing. 

 

I dunno, mate. It seems much more likely that he's getting rid of people with the stench of Corbyn's failure out and putting new faces in. Maybe he thinks they did a bad job, maybe he thinks going in with the same bunch that just lost and people didn't trust to run the country is a bad idea. I'd believe pretty much anything before the idea that he's an anti-socialist trying to break down the fabric of the party in order to make it Red Conservatives. It's... silly, in my view. It sounds like the political tactics used by Galloway and his comrades are convincing you he's some sort of right-winger hell bent on destroying the party. 

 

Corbyn deliberately put non socialists in to have a mixture of views I think.

 

And I don't support Starmer because I think he's more of a centrist, I didn't need Galloway to help me with that. I'm socialist/anarchist so there's very little chance at all that someone with a knighthood and trilateral commission membership (or maybe former membership now) is going to be reflecting my own views.

 

If Corbyn wasn't left enough for me (didn't manage to democratise party enough or push for PR voting, caved on too many issues) there's no way Starmer is going to solve things for me so I'll just vote Green.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Corbyn deliberately put non socialists in to have a mixture of views I think.

 

And I don't support Starmer because I think he's more of a centrist, I didn't need Galloway to help me with that. I'm socialist/anarchist so there's very little chance at all that someone with a knighthood and trilateral commission membership (or maybe former membership now) is going to be reflecting my own views.

 

If Corbyn wasn't left enough for me (didn't manage to democratise party enough or push for PR voting, caved on too many issues) there's no way Starmer is going to solve things for me so I'll just vote Green.

Cool, fair enough. I, for one, would support a Green Party government. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starmer as a Labour PM is a million miles better than any Tory government regardless of his knighthood. Choosing to vote Green/Lib-Dem or anything else instead when they have zero chance of getting into power is your way of handing more power to the tories for longer. 

 

Vote Labour. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Starmer as a Labour PM is a million miles better than any Tory government regardless of his knighthood. Choosing to vote Green/Lib-Dem or anything else instead when they have zero chance of getting into power is your way of handing more power to the tories for longer. 

 

Vote Labour. 

 

And Tories can console themselves that at least a (red, well, ochre) knight is in change.

 

Unification.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The left doesn't need more politicians - they are a dime a dozen.

This isn't the case in the Labour Party in the UK, in fact it's been a big part of the problem. There really isn't anyone to choose from. It's either people in their 60s with lots of baggage, or people in their 30s that are far too wet behind the ears.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...