Keir Starmer

[Scooby Dudek]

If he goes, I thought most of the drop in membership was " the left", "Corbynistas" either leaving or being expelled/suspended, so it will be the centre/right or whatever title that will be voting on leader and deputy.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

If he goes, I thought most of the drop in membership was " the left", "Corbynistas" either leaving or being expelled/suspended, so it will be the centre/right or whatever title that will be voting on leader and deputy.

Not so much, it’s just natural fluctuation. It actually happened under Corbyn between 2017 and 2019. I guess we will see at some point. 

[Scooby Dudek]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Not so much, it’s just natural fluctuation. It actually happened under Corbyn between 2017 and 2019. I guess we will see at some point. 

Fair enough, just anecdotal but the majority of lefties I know have either left the party willingly or been pushed. Obviously this doesn't then mean it is the same is true all around. I am one of the few lefties remaining in the party and that is down purely to indifference.  I didn't attend any zoom meetings during Covid, so didn't get pissed off enough to leave or kick off. I have not attended anything political since Covid started.

[Section_31]

16 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

If he goes, I thought most of the drop in membership was " the left", "Corbynistas" either leaving or being expelled/suspended, so it will be the centre/right or whatever title that will be voting on leader and deputy.

 

I still reckon most of the Labour membership is a broad church. There were a lot of Corbyn followers who were pretty ferociously anti anyone but Corbyn, think Blair should be jailed and whatnot, but I reckon most Labour supporters are united by what they're not rather than what they are - Tories. They don't like Tories, don't want the Tories to be in power and consider any Labour government an improvement. 

 

I don't think Labour members voting for a replacement for Starmer are going to be right wing or centre right by and large, they'll vote for whoever they think can get the job done.

 

I've said a few times on here but it's bizarre how the argument has been framed that Starmer is an insurgent who stole Labour away from the 'left'. People didn't join en masse from other parties to vote for Starmer the way they did Corbyn, often people who'd stood against the party in the past, Greens/socialists etc. 

 

 There's nothing wrong with that. Corbyn was an outsider and he shook politics up, as well as the Labour party, but 'his' Labour wasn't the true Labour as has been presented since he was ousted. He was the insurgent, not Starmer - he'd be the first to admit that, he's always been a thorn in Labour leaderships' sides.

 

If you look at the timeline of Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Ed Miliband, Corbyn, Starmer - only one of those is radically out of place in terms of background and views on things like, for example, foreign policy, Trident etc.

 

Virtually every one of those names though, bar Corbyn, has and will be dragged through the mud by his supporters. What they're really saying is they don't like the Labour party and want to change it into something else. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but there needs to be some honesty about it.

 

Labour isn't just a purely socialist party, it was a party of blue collar workers (many of whom would frown upon things like, for example, ditching military shipyards - because they work there). As blue collar/union jobs have declined, just like the Democrats in the States, they've had to broaden their appeal - new Labour or whatever you want to call it - to include liberals and basically anyone who's not a Tory/Republican. 

 

I'd be considered a hated centrist by the Owen Jones types. But I just hate the fucking Tories. I believe in a strong welfare state, public ownership of utilities, unions, fair wages - that's what my previous generations of Labour supporting family believed too.

 

Neither they, nor I, really gives much thought for Kashmir (so shoot me) or nuclear disarmament or Tony Blair - 20 years after Iraq. I just simply don't care. I just want people to have good jobs and not live in a shithole. 

 

[Arniepie]

6 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I still reckon most of the Labour membership is a broad church. There were a lot of Corbyn followers who were pretty ferociously anti anyone but Corbyn, think Blair should be jailed and whatnot, but I reckon most Labour supporters are united by what they're not rather than what they are - Tories. They don't like Tories, don't want the Tories to be in power and consider any Labour government an improvement. 

 

I don't think Labour members voting for a replacement for Starmer are going to be right wing or centre right by and large, they'll vote for whoever they think can get the job done.

 

I've said a few times on here but it's bizarre how the argument has been framed that Starmer is an insurgent who stole Labour away from the 'left'. People didn't join en masse from other parties to vote for Starmer the way they did Corbyn, often people who'd stood against the party in the past, Greens/socialists etc. 

 

 There's nothing wrong with that. Corbyn was an outsider and he shook politics up, as well as the Labour party, but 'his' Labour wasn't the true Labour as has been presented since he was ousted. He was the insurgent, not Starmer - he'd be the first to admit that, he's always been a thorn in Labour leaderships' sides.

 

If you look at the timeline of Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Ed Miliband, Corbyn, Starmer - only one of those is radically out of place in terms of background and views on things like, for example, foreign policy, Trident etc.

 

Virtually every one of those names though, bar Corbyn, has and will be dragged through the mud by his supporters. What they're really saying is they don't like the Labour party and want to change it into something else. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but there needs to be some honesty about it.

 

Labour isn't just a purely socialist party, it was a party of blue collar workers (many of whom would frown upon things like, for example, ditching military shipyards - because they work there). As blue collar/union jobs have declined, just like the Democrats in the States, they've had to broaden their appeal - new Labour or whatever you want to call it - to include liberals and basically anyone who's not a Tory/Republican. 

 

I'd be considered a hated centrist by the Owen Jones types. But I just hate the fucking Tories. I believe in a strong welfare state, public ownership of utilities, unions, fair wages - that's what my previous generations of Labour supporting family believed too.

 

Neither they, nor I, really gives much thought for Kashmir (so shoot me) or nuclear disarmament or Tony Blair - 20 years after Iraq. I just simply don't care. I just want people to have good jobs and not live in a shithole. 

 

That battle has been going on for years though hasn't it?

Think back to the 80s with kinnock and militant.I don't think it started with corbyn but it was probally the 1st time in decades a true 'leftist 'leader got in.

Both sides claiming to be 'true Labour '

Like you say,Labour has always been a broad church but I think Brexit,the red wall,Blair leaving behind the North.. all blew that to smithereens. 

Personally I think labour are almost fatally split now.

But obviously breaking up would be leaving the door open to them horrific cunts for another 5 years.

[A Red]

35 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

 

 

Neither they, nor I, really gives much thought for Kashmir (so shoot me) or nuclear disarmament or Tony Blair - 20 years after Iraq. I just simply don't care. I just want people to have good jobs and not live in a shithole. 

 

I bet you put Palestine and thought "fuck that...err......Kashmir....yeah thats it!" And thank the lord that you did.

[Scooby Dudek]

I was only throwing the left, right centre and @Numero VeinticincoVeinticinco was saying the left can have a say in the next leader. This is not a dig at him or anyone. Just a context.

 

I would argue, as someone who would be called a left wing nut case, that I care about the same things as most on here and the issue I have with I only care about Palestine is it is a chicken and egg for me. I consider myself an internationalist but I only talk about other countries, people's when asked (when not among my fellow nut cases).

Corbyn got repeatedly asked if he would happily blow half the world up or what he thought about Kashmir, then the same people (not on here) would say all he talks about is nuclear disarmament and Kashmir. 

The only time NATO is mentioned is by the Tories saying Corbyns Labour wanted to leave, despite this not being true, neither manifesto mentioned leaving NATO, official party policy is to remain in NATO. All the left talk about is leaving NATO etc.

 

 

In relation to the he party and who is the outlier in the broad church. A significant moment, for me, was changing clause four.

 

Clause IV is part of the Labour Party Rule Book, which sets out the aims and values of the (UK) Labour Party. The original clause, adopted in 1918, called for common ownership of industry, and proved controversial in later years;

 

In 1995, under the leadership of Tony Blair, a new Clause IV was adopted. This was seen as a significant moment in Blair's redefinition of the party as New Labour, but has survived beyond the New Labour branding

 

 

So the party was founded in 1900 and from 1918 until 1995 it had this in its rule book;

 

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service

 

 

 

To put out an olive branch, Starmer is talking about common ownership 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Scooby Dudek

[Scooby Dudek]

A few from the Guardian if anyone wants a bit of unbiased context;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/09/clause-iv-of-labour-party-constitution-what-is-all-the-fuss-about-reinstating-it

[Captain Willard]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

I bet you put Palestine and thought "fuck that...err......Kashmir....yeah thats it!" And thank the lord that you did.

I read it as a jumper reference. 

[sir roger]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

I’ve said a few times on here but it's bizarre how the argument has been framed that Starmer is an insurgent who stole Labour away from the 'left'. People didn't join en masse from other parties to vote for Starmer the way they did Corbyn, often people who'd stood against the party in the past, Greens/socialists etc. 

 

Virtually every one of those names though, bar Corbyn, has and will be dragged through the mud by his supporters. 

 

I'd be considered a hated centrist by the Owen Jones types. But I just hate the fucking Tories. 

 

Neither they, nor I, really gives much thought for Kashmir (so shoot me) or nuclear disarmament or Tony Blair - 20 years after Iraq. I just simply don't care. I just want people to have good jobs and not live in a shithole. 

 

I have not seen anybody outside yourself suggesting Starmer is an insurgent. The vast majority of critics suggest that he lied completely about having any intention to unify the party and the only fire he has shown has been against left wing party members.

 

It is also interesting to note how little media interest is shown in the mass expulsions, as opposed to the ridiculous overemphasis on the baying Corbynite lefties supposedly  getting rid of everybody to the right of Karl Marx which in reality led to the deselection of one insignificant Birmingham mp and no actual members from my knowledge.

 

Corbyn won the party leadership with two landslides and you being ready to believe that it was down to votes from other parties with tiny memberships suggests you want to believe that.

 

If we are in a mud wrestling contest most of the names you mention would be up to their ankles from Left wing criticism

( Blair a different matter ) while centrist / right opprobrium would have Corbyn up to his neck.

 

Section and his Owen Jones obsession Aaaaah !!

 

You are allowed to think about more than one thing I believe. It is a convenient put down to suggest obscure shit  is all ‘ lefties ‘ worry about unlike the adults in the centre.

[Gnasher]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I just noticed that I edited the part about ‘getting whichever leader the left want’ out of my post, so my post might be lacking just a wee bit of making sense. 
 

Edit. Fuck sakes, it’s in there. Time for one of Gnasher’s pills. 

 

Both myself and Corbyn already mentioned  this afternoon i see. God you're a tiresome cunt.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

 

Both myself and Corbyn both already this afternoon i see. God you're a tiresome cunt.

More thrilling contributions. Thick cunt. 

[Scooby Dudek]

14 minutes ago, sir roger said:

 

 

It is also interesting to note how little media interest is shown in the mass expulsions, as opposed to the ridiculous overemphasis on the baying Corbynite lefties supposedly  getting rid of everybody to the right of Karl Marx which in reality led to the deselection of one insignificant Birmingham mp and no actual members from my knowledge.

 

Corbyn won the party leadership with two landslides and you being ready to believe that it was down to votes from other parties with tiny memberships suggests you want to believe that.

 

You are allowed to think about more than one thing I believe. It is a convenient put down to suggest obscure shit  is all ‘ lefties ‘ worry about unlike the adults in the centre.

Only the left are undemocratic by (imposing short lists) saying local members should have a say on who represents them.

 

It is a narrative, it has been pointed out often that in the 2015 leadership election,whilst approx 84% of new registered (£3)members voted for Corbyn, a massive 49.6% of full Labour party members who voted also voted for Corbyn. 

 

In relation to the last paragraph it always reminds me of the hero's on Facebook who post a photo split in half. One half will have a migrant family and the other will have a pensioner/war hero looking sad. 

"Why should our heroes starve?" 

 

It is possible to believe we should help all people and no one should starve. Crazy 

[Gnasher]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

More thrilling contributions. Thick cunt. 

Aw he's upset again. Time to fire up the coffee machine you tedious little twat. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

Aw he's upset again. Time to fire up the coffee machine again you tedious little twat. 

Okay, thick cunt. 

[Gnasher]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I just noticed that I edited the part about ‘getting whichever leader the left want’ out of my post, so my post might be lacking just a wee bit of making sense. 
 

Edit. Fuck sakes, it’s in there. Time for one of Gnasher’s pills. 

Obsessed. You do that you tedious cunt. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Obsessed. You do that you tedious cunt. 

Okay, thick cunt.

[Gnasher]

8 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Labour needs to be bold when trying to appeal to ordinary voters. Good idea this by McDonnell and Co.

 

Desperate time for many families so price controls make sense.

 

 

 

 

 

Lubak butter has apparently been fitted with anti theft devices in certain stores in the UK. The product is up to around a whopping £7 in Sainsburys. Sainsburys profits last year, over 600 million.

 

Labour could do worse than adopting the plan set out by McDonnell and the economists in the above article and pledge certain price controls to help struggling families.

[Gnasher]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Okay, thick cunt.

Corbs.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Corbs.

Agreed. 

[Gnasher]

8 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Labour needs to be bold when trying to appeal to ordinary voters. Good idea this by McDonnell and Co.

 

Desperate time for many families so price controls make sense.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/12/sainsburys-toasts-more-profits-champagne-sales-soar

 

 

[Gnasher]

 

The attack on the left continues whilst the Britain's poor look to the opposition to offer alternatives for those struggling at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis.

 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

 

[Harry's Lad]

Much, much better from Starmer. 

[Bruce Spanner]

 

Get rid of him now or we call a VoNC immediately to get rid of him.

 

Meaning they have to go against their own self interests and head for a GE where they'll likely get embarrassed, or back Alex and truly destroy themselves.

 

They don't want a GE, but Starmer has just backed them in to a proper corner.

 

Smart move and very well timed.