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

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

There's something fundamentally wrong with our political system that goes even deeper than FPTP v PR.  The problem is that we don't elect the executive branch of Government; we have never had an elected Prime Minister. This is exacerbated by the way the media and the parties run General Elections as though we do elect the Prime Minister. The upshot is, instead of voting on policies, people vote on whether, for example, they prefer the funny scamp with with the tousled hair to the scary racist with the Russian hat.

Don't see why Labour don't go for PR with the tweed coat crew myself. The current system is as you say a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were up to me, I'd make the PM a directly elected post; stop MPs from being Ministers (because those two roles are incompatible); keep the House of Commons as it is and replace the House of Lords with a chamber elected by PR. And, obviously, I'd fuck the Monarch off to a museum somewhere, far, far away from any political influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

If it were up to me, I'd make the PM a directly elected post; stop MPs from being Ministers (because those two roles are incompatible); keep the House of Commons as it is and replace the House of Lords with a chamber elected by PR. And, obviously, I'd fuck the Monarch off to a museum somewhere, far, far away from any political influence.


But then you’re entering the realms of President and unless the system of checks and balances stop the richest/most backed from winning then we’re back where we were, but with less upside as they’ll be conflict between the nominal president and whatever body is underneath.

 

PR is, for me, a solution, not the solution.

 

The current system, as we know, is about entrenching and preserving ruling class values and needs a revolution, not reform.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:


But then you’re entering the realms of President and unless the system of checks and balances stop the richest/most backed from winning then we’re back where we were, but with less upside as they’ll be conflict between the nominal president and whatever body is underneath.

 

PR is, for me, a solution, not the solution.

 

The current system, as we know, is about entrenching and preserving ruling class values and needs a revolution, not reform.

 

 

We'd have more checks & balances within my proposal than we have at present. What you call the "conflict" between the head of the Executive branch and the two houses of the Legislative branch is the whole point: nobody gets absolute power. 

 

One thing I would keep - in fact, strengthen - is our system of election spending limits and free TV election broadcasts (coupled with a ban on TV adverts); the anti-democratic "biggest spender wins" aspect of the US system is not inevitable.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Another day, another Jewish Socialist being purged from Starmer's party.

 

 

Did she post a pictures of the letter and a clearly postmarked and stamped envelope, as well as CCTV footage of the postman putting the letter through her letterbox?

 

If not, there's a chance that she might be lying. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LAW is one of the organisations that was recently proscribed by the Labour NEC, so anyone who was a member of any of the proscribed groups should probably not be surprised that they're going to be asked to choose between that and membership of Labour. It's pretty clear they can't be both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

LAW is one of the organisations that was recently proscribed by the Labour NEC, so anyone who was a member of any of the proscribed groups should probably not be surprised that they're going to be asked to choose between that and membership of Labour. It's pretty clear they can't be both.

Even without getting into whether LAW should be proscribed* we're not talking about "membership"; we're talking about support - and that includes attending open meetings, signing petitions, retweeting messages, etc. before LAW was proscribed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*It shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Even without getting into whether LAW should be proscribed* we're not talking about "membership"; we're talking about support - and that includes attending open meetings, signing petitions, retweeting messages, etc. before LAW was proscribed.

 

Obviously it's difficult to be certain, as the complainants persistently refuse to share the exact text of the letters they're receiving; however what appears to be the case (and what makes more sense on any rational analysis) is that past support for these organisations is not being used as an excuse for expulsion per se, simply as a reason for inquiring whether that support is still being given, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

the complainants persistently refuse to share the exact text of the letters they're receiving

Do they?

 

Have they been "persistently" asked to share copies of their private mail? Has anybody from the Labour Party "persistently" denied any of the claims?  Or should the "auto-excluded" activists just be expected to know that some disingenuous, twisty twerp on a football forum expects Lefties to provide evidence they're not lying every time they make any public statements?

Edited by AngryOfTuebrook
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Obviously it's difficult to be certain, as the complainants persistently refuse to share the exact text of the letters they're receiving; however what appears to be the case (and what makes more sense on any rational analysis) is that past support for these organisations is not being used as an excuse for expulsion per se, simply as a reason for inquiring whether that support is still being given, now.

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of Labour Against the Witch-hunts?"

 

Yeah, seems "rational" to me.

 

Screenshot_2021-08-25-03-51-01-00.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of Labour Against the Witch-hunts?"

 

Yeah, seems "rational" to me.

 

But that's not the question they're being asked, and the repeated attempts to draw some kind of equivalence between this and McCarthyism are feeble.

 

They don't need to ask that question, because the party already knows they've supported these organisations in the past.

 

Now, rightly or wrongly, the NEC has made its democratic decision, and people can't continue to support these organisations and remain Labour members. So it's perfectly reasonable to ask them if they still support the proscribed organisations in question.

 

If someone who was a Labour member had publicly expressed support for another proscribed organisation (say, the EDL) in the past, I'm sure you'd have no problem with them being asked a few questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

But that's not the question they're being asked, and the repeated attempts to draw some kind of equivalence between this and McCarthyism are feeble.

 

They don't need to ask that question, because the party already knows they've supported these organisations in the past.

 

Now, rightly or wrongly, the NEC has made its democratic decision, and people can't continue to support these organisations and remain Labour members. So it's perfectly reasonable to ask them if they still support the proscribed organisations in question.

 

If someone who was a Labour member had publicly expressed support for another proscribed organisation (say, the EDL) in the past, I'm sure you'd have no problem with them being asked a few questions.

There's nothing "democratic" about the decision to proscribe these organisations.

 

People are being told to demonstrate that they no longer support these organisations; they are being told to prove a negative. That's not "perfectly reasonable".

 

Don't bring the EDL into it if you're going to talk about feeble equivalences; it makes you look very silly, at best. A better hypothetical equivalence would be "what if there was a group within the Labour Party that supported a racist, Apartheid state; if that group was proscribed by left-wingers and its supporters threatened with 'auto-exclusion', how robustly would Stronts defend the Party's democratic decision?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

Considering the current shower of absolute cunts running the country, you would really think this wouldnt be top of the 'things to do today 'list.


It is if you can get rid of enough members before conference and reduce the risk of Evens being given a vote of no confidence…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


It is if you can get rid of enough members before conference and reduce the risk of Evens being given a vote of no confidence…

David Evans I presume not David Evens. Couldn't agree more with your general point though Brucie, both a pair of cunts even though I have no idea who the latter is, though guilt by association is more than enough to receive a guilty verdict from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

Fair play to Labour, it’s actually incredibly impressive just how badly they can rip themselves apart.

It's just so unnecessary. Let's be honest, grassroots campaigning is never going to be Starmer's strength. Most of the energy for that sort of stuff comes from the left of the party. So there's plenty of room to let Socialist Labour members lead the fight against Tory cuts and organise to get the vote out at constituency level; Starmer could then focus on his strengths, like winning PMQs and looking beautifully-coiffed and "electable". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's just so unnecessary. Let's be honest, grassroots campaigning is never going to be Starmer's strength. Most of the energy for that sort of stuff comes from the left of the party. So there's plenty of room to let Socialist Labour members lead the fight against Tory cuts and organise to get the vote out at constituency level; Starmer could then focus on his strengths, like winning PMQs and looking beautifully-coiffed and "electable". 

It would be nice cos this shit benefits nobody. I remember the Conservatives kicking fuck out of each other over Europe, especially during the Major but this is next level. It needs to stop

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Howdy said:

It would be nice cos this shit benefits nobody. I remember the Conservatives kicking fuck out of each other over Europe, especially during the Major but this is next level. It needs to stop

 

I think it probably only stops when the left gives up and fucks off and everyone just accepts that the Labour party is a centrist party. Change the "Democratic Socialist" bit on the membership card, etc. Maybe just replace it with a picture of Peter Mandelson.

 

Obviously it would guarantee decades of Tory governments, which looks fairly likely anyway in all fairness.

 

The Labour party has gone from something to be hated or laughed at to something no-one gives a fuck about any more. They're becoming the Lib Dems.

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...