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.

Keir Starmer


rb14
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

The cost of social care is obscene. It must be the biggest grift on the planet. It would be cheaper to stay in a 5 star hotel.


Health and social care is fucking obscene. 
 

No one will have the bollocks to come out and say it should be nationalised but it would save billions and increase the quality of care provided. 

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

54 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Nowt like a spot of dinner and lobbying, if you can afford it.

 

 

Presumably, this is what he got from his fabled voyages through the heartlands: voters were telling him they're not arsed about widespread poverty or the slow death of the NHS, as long as rich people get to have a bespoke supporter journey, they'll come out and vote in droves.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Welcome to the real world, where things cost money.

Walloper.

 

There's also a world in which a party can have hundreds of thousands of fee-paying members, thousands of whom are happy to volunteer to do stuff.

 

It's been said many times that "ya gotta dance with them what bring ya". Obviously, for the Tories that means working for their rich donors and supporters. For Labour it has to mean working for the millions of working class people, otherwise what's the fucking point?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Walloper.

 

There's also a world in which a party can have hundreds of thousands of fee-paying members, thousands of whom are happy to volunteer to do stuff.

 

My understanding is that high value donors are generally in addition to members and volunteers, not instead of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

My understanding is that high value donors are generally in addition to members and volunteers, not instead of them.

There is the possibility that the number of members and volunteers of a Democratic Socialist party may dwindle if they see the party attempting to get donations from people who almost certainly won't have the same aims as they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Whether we like the idea of big donors or not, haven't Labour been haemorrhaging spondulicks for years? Lad I worked with did member dues for one of the CLPs and he said there was a huge number of people on reduced fees.

 

 

I've said it over an over, any competent accountant would have them down as a non-viable concern.

 

The finances are so bad, with so much waste, it's a real basket case and a genuine concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

There is the possibility that the number of members and volunteers of a Democratic Socialist party may dwindle if they see the party attempting to get donations from people who almost certainly won't have the same aims as they do.

 

Won't have the same aims?

Okay, whenever we've had some Champagne socialist pipe up in the recent past, the overwhelming consensus on here has been that being rich is no barrier to supporting socialism. In fact I can recall some very heated defences of people like Russell Brand when even the merest suggestion was made that their millionaire showbiz lifestyle was hardly in step with collectivist ideals.

 

Now, all of a sudden (and I'm sure in no way related to the fact that Labour has a different leader now), apparently rich supporters of the Labour Party almost certainly won't share the aims of the membership.

 

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either rich people can and do have a social conscience and can share the aims of the Labour Party, or they can't and don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

My understanding is that rich people don't generally give their money away unless they want something in return.

Bit of a generalisation there, I mean fundamentally who does? That said I’m sure that there are numerous generous rich people. There has to be some way of uniting people instead of these constant divides. Fucked if I know how like.

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...