Owen Jones.

[Bjornebye]

31 minutes ago, Strontium said:

He's not gonna sleep with you Stig.

 

 

 

 

Actually he might.

I don’t like the little prick myself. He can save it for you. Both full of shite, you’ll make a good couple. 

[VladimirIlyich]

10 hours ago, Kevin D said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/21/labour-party-cancelling-membership-policies
 

It’s difficult to disentangle Labour from my sense of self. Grew up in Stockport, looks a bit like Macaulay Culkin, bad dress sense … the Labour party always seemed to fit in there somewhere. My great-grandfather, a railwayman who had his wages docked in the General Strike nearly a century ago, was a Labour councillor. So was my grandmother; her proudest achievement was stopping a family being evicted by a private landlord over Christmas. My parents met at an open-air Labour meeting outside Tooting Bec in the 1960s (romantic). My mother bought me a Labour membership as a 15th birthday present. Under every Labour leader in my 21 years of adult life, I’ve plumped for the party’s candidates at local, national and European level, and campaigned for them to boot.
 

And yet, after a uniquely calamitous 14-year stretch of Tory rule, just as Labour looks set to reconquer No 10 by a landslide, I’ve just emailed the party cancelling my membership. My committed critics will understandably seek to link the two: Labour has shed its aversion to electability, and off sulks Home Alone’s patron saint of unelectable ideas.

But my decision isn’t based on a desire to see Labour for ever in the wilderness. Reaching it has been a gradual, painful process of realising the party won’t even do the bare minimum to improve people’s lives, or to tackle the crises that have led Britain to catastrophe; and that it will, in fact, wage war on anyone who wants to do either– making anyone with politics to the left of Peter Mandelson feel like a pariah on borrowed time. Yes, my relatives had conflicted relationships with the party, and were often frustrated by its insufficient radicalism. But they could always point to policies that transformed the lives of the people Labour was founded to represent, from the welfare state to the minimum wage and the NHS, where my grandmother worked for her whole life.

The premise of Keir Starmer’s leadership bid in 2020 was that popular policies such as taxing the rich to invest in public services, scrapping tuition fees and promoting public ownership were not to blame for the party’s 2019 electoral rout. Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 election manifesto, Starmer declared, was the party’s “foundational document” – centred around such commitments and credited with the party’s biggest surge in vote share since 1945, even if it wasn’t enough to win two years after a shattering defeat. “Jeremy Corbyn made our party the party of anti-austerity,” Starmer told shattered Labour members, “and he was right to do so.” Though I didn’t vote for him, his pitch gave hope for the broad church my ancestors believed in. In response, I wrote a column titled: “Starmer can succeed, and he deserves our support.”

Yet five years on, Labour has become a hostile environment for anyone believing in the very policies Starmer relied upon to secure the leadership. Sure, Tony Blair’s leadership bid didn’t include laying waste Iraq, but he didn’t pretend to be a slicker version of Tony Benn either.

“Circumstances changed,” plead Starmer’s defenders. Weird, then, that according to Margaret Hodge, she was led to believe by a Starmer ally during the leadership election that he was “lying” in order to get the job. Weird, too, that during that same campaign Starmer told Andrew Neil that nationalisation of utilities would feature in a Labour manifesto, but 18 months later said: “I never made a commitment to nationalisation.”

Ah, the luxury of a Guardian columnist, goes the predictable retort, demanding the most vulnerable pay the price for his lofty principles. Consider, though, that ending the two-child benefit cap would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and lessen the effects of poverty on a further 850,000, but Starmer backed keeping it anyway. Why? To sound tough, presumably. On who? Impoverished children, like those I grew up with in Stockport? This is the same Labour party that has ruled out bringing back a cap on bankers’ bonuses or instituting a wealth tax. The same Labour party committed to Tory fiscal rules that lock the country into dismal austerity policies that have delivered collapsing public services and an unprecedented decline in living standards. The same Labour party that gutted its one distinctive flagship policy, a £28bn-a-year green investment fund, not because it came under pressure, but because it feared it might.

Some argue that Labour is doing a Clark Kent, and will unveil its hidden progressive Superman upon assuming office. Yet those fiscal rules make that approach impossible, even if you disregard the propensity of Labour governments to become more rightwing in office.

The assault on Gaza, the great crime of our age, adds moral indecency to the pile of dishonesty and vacuity. When Starmer declared Israel had the right to cut off energy and water to Palestinian civilians, he did so as a human rights lawyer who understands the Geneva conventions. After letting shadow cabinet ministers defend him, he claimed it “has never been my view that Israel had the right to cut off water, food, fuel or medicines”. We all have political red lines: mine is supporting what would amount to war crimes against innocent civilians, toddlers and newborn babies among them, then gaslighting the public over doing so.

 

Where is my gratitude for Starmer delivering a now inevitable landslide victory, you may ask? Well, he didn’t force Boris Johnson and his cronies to violate their own pandemic rules, or to trash the NHS, or oversee the worst squeeze in living standards in history. Nor did he propel to power Liz Truss, whose unhinged economic experiment crashed the economy – the moment when the electorate turned on this Tory party for good.

 

The absolute power a landslide victory will give Labour should scare you. When Starmer allies deployed antisemitic tropes – with one jokingabout a “run on silver shekels” when two Jewish businessmen missed out on peerages, and another calling a Jewish Tory donor a “puppet master” – an apology was deemed to be sufficient. When another racially abused a journalist and had a sexual harassment complaint upheld, they were reinstated after investigation.

Contrast this with Diane Abbott, Britain’s first Black female MP, who was suspended after immediately apologising for an Observer letter in which she argued that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people are not subject to racism “all their lives”. She has been left in limbo for 10 months and counting while the party investigates – only for Labour to use the racist abuse directed at her by a Tory donor for political capital, while still refusing to reinstate her.

Another fellow leftwinger, Kate Osamor – again, a Black female MP – was suspended for describing the assault on Gaza as a genocide on the day the international court of justice placed Israel on trial for alleged genocide. Questions of racism, then, seem to be judged on whether they have a factional use – a sure sign of moral bankruptcy. This leadership style is crude in opposition; with an overwhelming majority, it will be chilling.

That is why I think those who believe in real change from the Tories’ bankrupt model should vote for Green or independent candidates. A new initiative – We Deserve Better – is raising money to support such candidates, judged on whether they believe in, say, taxing the well-off to invest, or public ownership, or opposing war crimes, even if they differ on this or that. Those seeking transformative policies are now fragmented, but they don’t have to be. The premise of this new initiative is simple: if the left doesn’t band together, the only pressure on Labour will come from the migrant-bashing, rich-worshipping right.

The Tories’ chance of winning is infinitesimally small. What matters now is whether anyone who wants to redistribute wealth and power is denied a voice in Starmer’s administration. That is certainly the ambition of his lieutenants. When inevitable disillusionment with a government rooted in deceit and lacking any solutions to Britain’s woes seeps in, it will be the radical right that stands to benefit.

So bid me farewell, even cry “good riddance”, but before you do, ask yourself: what do you think will happen next?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great advice Owen to vote Green or Independent! This is a sure fire way of the Tories being elected yet again. It might be fine for him personally but yet another Tory term would be seismic for many ordinary people in this country,in an extremely negative way. Nice hissy fit mate,publicly and all. You should become a member on here as we all enjoy a flounce.

And why is it,once again,that a party NOT in power is held responsible over the one that actually is? Fuckin knobhead attention seeker.

[bossy]

The right wot’s got the power. The left wot’s got the blame. Ain’t it a bloomin’ shame. 

[Jack the Sipper]

I'd be interested to know what the Green Party make of the page he's set up for donations that he says will go to, among others, selected Green Party candidates. People who donate only have a finite amount of money to give to political causes, and I'd be surprised if the GP were happy with money that might otherwise be going to them to distribute going instead to Jones to decide what Green candidates meet his criteria for donations, because not all of them will.

 

I can see a situation where GP candidates, desperate for campaign funds, end up twerking for Jones, possibly going against the party line and pissing off colleagues along the way.

 

I see Zack Polanski's wasting no time here. Zach, BTW, said he couldn't vote Labour when Corbyn was leader because he was an anti-semite. A view he still holds.

 

It's a crazy old game on the left.

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

1 hour ago, Jack the Sipper said:

I'd be interested to know what the Green Party make of the page he's set up for donations that he says will go to, among others, selected Green Party candidates. People who donate only have a finite amount of money to give to political causes, and I'd be surprised if the GP were happy with money that might otherwise be going to them to distribute going instead to Jones to decide what Green candidates meet his criteria for donations, because not all of them will.

 

I can see a situation where GP candidates, desperate for campaign funds, end up twerking for Jones, possibly going against the party line and pissing off colleagues along the way.

 

I see Zack Polanski's wasting no time here. Zach, BTW, said he couldn't vote Labour when Corbyn was leader because he was an anti-semite. A view he still holds.

 

It's a crazy old game on the left.

 

 

With a name like Polanski he’s bound to attract the minors.

[VladimirIlyich]

8 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

With a name like Polanski he’s bound to attract the minors.

'What has Roman ever done for us?'

[Paul]

Leaving politics aside, Owen Jones is a sneering, smug little cunt who absolutely fucking loves the sound of his own voice. Fuck him. 

[Gnasher]

Zack Polanski is Jewish. Owen Jones has Jewish family. 

 

 

 

 

 

Back onto playing the ball not the man. Little wrong with the content of both Jones and Polanskis statements on the political trajectory of the current Labour Party.   Plus, Labours leaders are not shy to admit it, 'were all Tories now' 'Thatcher was inspirational' and the "late seventies/eighties was a era of rejuvenation and renewal' according to some.  Nah not for me Clive. 

[TheSire]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

Leaving politics aside, Owen Jones is a sneering, smug little cunt who absolutely fucking loves the sound of his own voice. Fuck him. 

He's a right little shithouse. Can imagine him being hated by all the kids in school for being a shitstirring twat.

[Bjornebye]

35 minutes ago, TheSire said:

He's a right little shithouse. Can imagine him being hated by all the kids in school for being a shitstirring twat.

Captain Turdseye > Owen Jones 

[Section_31]

Jones is just one of the latest to have driven himself bonkers on Twitter. JK Rowling and Graham Linehen the same.

 

They get embroiled in a debate and the more flak they take the more they dig in, to the point where they spend all their time just deliberately trying to wind up and vilify the people they perceive to be the villains of the piece.

 

Life isn't that simple. Nobody is entirely right or entirely wrong. 

[Gnasher]

Ayleet is on the button here. Just attack the messenger to provide camouflage from the legitimate points he makes.  It's a tried and tested trick which will probably soon also include homophobic little slurs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sir roger]

He is a bit snivelly, but is probably more in line with my politics than 90% of the commentators and journalists in the media, which makes it a bit odd that he seems to wind people up on here far more than these others. 

[Arniepie]

8 minutes ago, sir roger said:

He is a bit snivelly, but is probably more in line with my politics than 90% of the commentators and journalists in the media, which makes it a bit odd that he seems to wind people up on here far more than these others. 

Its very rare,he does an opinion piece,which I disagree with. 

[Gnasher]

Jones has received more criticism here for leaving the Labour Party because he believes they've abandoned the policies which could eradicate stuff like this

 

 

 

than the austerity inspired Rachel Reeves bullshit speech the other night which all but ensures it's going to continue. 

[Gnasher]

 

One of the main points in that Jones statement. It's just so obvious and so needed. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/23/inflation-millionaires-tax-taxation-spending-rich-wealth

 

 

[Kevin D]

On 22/03/2024 at 10:49, Scooby Dudek said:

Why do you keep repeating this lie ? 

 

Yes, the majority of people who joined at the time voted for Corbyn, however of the membership who were there before the contest started Corbyn got 49% of the vote, with the next best being 22%. His victory was bigger because of the influx, but he didn't only win because of them, it just made his winning margin greater.

 

 

 

 

Section_31 is - likely always be - the greatest poster in the history of this forum.

 

He’s got a bit of a blind spot on this, though; I think it’s because he’s just had both too much of these Tories and spent a bit too much time on twitter.

[Section_31]

I never said people joining labour gave corbyn the leadership, but that people from outside labour (who probably didn't like labour) joined purely to vote for him, the most rebellious labour mp in the commons. And yet it's starmer who's depicted as having taken over the party.

 

A lot of the anti starmer stuff is spot on, but it's watered down by the fact it's been going on since day one, let's not pretend it's about palestine or u turns. It's because he's not rebecca long Bailey.

 

And what's wrong with having no other reason to vote for labour other than the fact they're not the tories? 

 

"Winning the argument" is great, but I'd rather not be run by gangsters.

[Captain Willard]

5 hours ago, Paul said:

Leaving politics aside, Owen Jones is a sneering, smug little cunt who absolutely fucking loves the sound of his own voice. Fuck him. 

Somebody once called him Squeeler from Animal Farm which is a brilliant spot. 

[Captain Willard]

3 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Jones is just one of the latest to have driven himself bonkers on Twitter. JK Rowling and Graham Linehen the same.

 

They get embroiled in a debate and the more flak they take the more they dig in, to the point where they spend all their time just deliberately trying to wind up and vilify the people they perceive to be the villains of the piece.

 

Life isn't that simple. Nobody is entirely right or entirely wrong. 

Apart from pro beaners obviously. 

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, Kevin D said:

Section_31 is - likely always be - the greatest poster in the history of this forum.

 

He’s got a bit of a blind spot on this, though; I think it’s because he’s just had both too much of these Tories and spent a bit too much time on twitter.

Section with Si a close second for me. From my time anyway. I missed the Momo days. 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

5 hours ago, Section_31 said:

I never said people joining labour gave corbyn the leadership, but that people from outside labour (who probably didn't like labour) joined purely to vote for him, the most rebellious labour mp in the commons. And yet it's starmer who's depicted as having taken over the party.

 

A lot of the anti starmer stuff is spot on, but it's watered down by the fact it's been going on since day one, let's not pretend it's about palestine or u turns. It's because he's not rebecca long Bailey.

 

And what's wrong with having no other reason to vote for labour other than the fact they're not the tories? 

 

"Winning the argument" is great, but I'd rather not be run by gangsters.

I just can’t get onboard with this theory. He’s rightly getting shite because he’s a liar. She was thick as concrete and would have been a worse leader than Corbyn by far. 

Personally, principles are a good reason for me not to vote for him . I just can’t get on board with anything he says, does or proposes. As he’s a con artist. Tory-lite policies and I don’t go to the polling booth to vote Tory. 
 

If people are happy accept how he has acted, then they are condoning deceitful behaviour or being extremely naive at best. It’s the exact same behaviour that the Tories have displayed for the last 14 years. It’s not acceptable for them to behave like that, so why is it acceptable for Starmer?

 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

13 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I just can’t get onboard with this theory. He’s rightly getting shite because he’s a liar. She was thick as concrete and would have been a worse leader than Corbyn by far. 

Personally, principles are a good reason for me not to vote for him . I just can’t get on board with anything he says, does or proposes. As he’s a con artist. Tory-lite policies and I don’t go to the polling booth to vote Tory. 
 

If people are happy accept how he has acted, then they are condoning deceitful behaviour or being extremely naive at best. It’s the exact same behaviour that the Tories have displayed for the last 14 years. It’s not acceptable for them to behave like that, so why is it acceptable for Starmer?

 

 

 

Blunter side of a cunt sword I guess 

[Section_31]

14 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I just can’t get onboard with this theory. He’s rightly getting shite because he’s a liar. She was thick as concrete and would have been a worse leader than Corbyn by far. 

Personally, principles are a good reason for me not to vote for him . I just can’t get on board with anything he says, does or proposes. As he’s a con artist. Tory-lite policies and I don’t go to the polling booth to vote Tory. 
 

If people are happy accept how he has acted, then they are condoning deceitful behaviour or being extremely naive at best. It’s the exact same behaviour that the Tories have displayed for the last 14 years. It’s not acceptable for them to behave like that, so why is it acceptable for Starmer?

 

 

 

 

Because it's the only way to win. This is a proven fact. Blair is the only Labour leader in my lifetime.

 

It's a right wing country, with a right wing press, with a working class that elected 30p Lee and put Dennis Skinner on the dole.

 

People voted in huge numbers for Boris Johnson over Corbyn, Boris Johnson! 

 

People need to see this country for what it is, not what they wish it was. 

 

Starmer has left the Tories with so little room to maneuver they're talking about meat taxes and six bins which don't exist, his history as a prosecutor and, erm, Jeremy Corbyn.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Agree with a lot of that, but I'm not sure it is a right wing country, at least not in as entrenched a manner as it seems now. Maybe centre right.

 

Corbyn's policies were popular in blind polls. The problem is a toxic press disingenuously framing things to avoid a reader/viewership voting for their own interests.