You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I like how they've got one of their token non-white MPs to announce it, as if that makes it ok.
So… one of the leaders right hand men has just pre-emptively endorsed Tory policy and pointed out that Labour policy is presently wrong and should be changed to be a bit more… well… Tory.
Indeed… and a lot of this centrist/left/right framing is nonsense. Do you want to keep foreigners out? Is that left or right, or just nationalist? Do you want workers on boards? Is that left or right, or just following best practise used in other countries? Do your want to invest in new Hospitals? Is that left or right, or just what needs doing due to the age of many of our hospitals?
all labour need to is change their leader and they’ll automatically win a little naive?
Who said that? Labour needed to change leader… the idea they could then just sit back and wait for a win isn’t the claim. They would have to work as hard as they do now, against the same problems of bias and misrepresentation, but without the albatross of Corbyn making things even harder for them.
but surely Corbyn isn’t the best Labour can come up with?
You're looking at it the wrong way. Corbyn won the leadership not because he was the best single candidate, but because he represented what the vast majority in the labout party want, which is a party that fights for working people. When the opportunity was presented to the membership to take back control of the party from the Stalinist grip of the blairites, they siezed it. Corbyn had a major role in channeling and focusing that 'rebellion', but he was in the right place at the right time. Any leftist candidate probably would have won in that leadership election, especially given the weakness of the centrist candidates. Look on the brightside, it could easily have been Diane Abbot 🙂
As to the future, there are many good candidates, mostly female, who can take labour forward. I've already made my own preference clear, but whoever it is should carry on where Corbyn leaves off. The centrists are not going to regain control.
What you’re effectively saying is that the primary criteria for the choice of labour leaders should be the whims and preferences of a few billionaire media barons.
Will you lot listen to yourselves FFS?
The point of politics is to get elected into power so you can do stuff. For that to happen, you need a leader that is... erm... what's the word.... oh yeah... 'electable'
SO you can endlessly bang on about media barons, the right wing press, Russian bots, Facebook advertising, Cambridge Analytica, the BBC... whatever... but the bottom line is that while all those things go against you, NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BELIEVE IN JEREMY CORBYN TO ACTUALLY VOTE FOR HIM
There. Its really that simple. And all the complaining, paranoid conspiracy theories and 'oh its all just, like, soooooooooo not fair's in the world aren't going to change that fact
So you carry on singing his praises all you like, and railing against perceived injustices of it all. At the end of the day the only thing it will achieve is 5 more years of the Tory's and a pathetic, impotent, totally ineffectual labour party waving its little placards on the sidelines
steve – its rubbish because those issues that were claimed to be particular to Muslims are not .
So two bits of rubbish based on racist sterotypes. 1) all muslims are fundamentalists and 2) only muslims behave like this
Both are simply wrong.
Using sterotypes to smear a whole group is racist
I haven't read every word but I see inferring not claiming...
But anyway ....
Stereotyping is perhaps bad ... but it's a necessary stage to myth busting rather than simply shutting down discourse so it's not entirely bad when it leads to myths being uncovered.
(I'm ignoring the whole elephant in the room of a sky fairy when I say myth)
Try replacing jew / judaism in that piece instead of Muslim / islam
So there is just how stupid this is!
Look at the complete bollox thrown at Corbyn ... (over something where both sides are equally wrong/right/terrorists/freedom fighters)
What I see as a bigger issue though is why for example it's different rules... had this been catholicism and paedo priests it wouldn't be called out as racist even though that's a big false stereotype based on some truths.
Corbyn won the leadership not because he was the best single candidate, but because he represented what the vast majority in the labout party want, which is a party that fights for working people.
Which, once again, comes back to the point that you can't implement any of that if you can't get into power. It's a necessary compromise if you don't already have the majority behind you.
Yet in the last election 40% of the electorate voted for him.
Who are the centrists that some people like to paint as the bogeyman these days? To me they are the ones inline with Tory policies on immigration and Europe. To another they are the ones pushing for higher taxes and more partnership between state and the private sector in public services. Who are your centrists? There are lots of ways for politicians to straddle both left and right ideas and apply them to policies that appeal to people who would call themselves either, or neither.
Why is that Binners? the malign influence of the Media barons perhaps?
I spent some time discussing corbyn with folk from the EU. Non of them could understand why corbyn was so vilified given that nothing he espouses is anything out of the norm in european social democratic countries and that as far as they were concerned he came across as moderate, thoughtful and honest
Yes corbyn gave those media barons an easy target so pragmatism might well have led to someone much blander leading the party but I really doubt it would have made much differnce
Yet in the last election 40% of the electorate voted for him
I love this attitude. He came second in a 2 horse race. He lost. Thats it. Full stop. And the other horse was Theresa May, who was actually a three-legged donkey. We have a first past the post electoral system. So it didn't matter if he go 40% (which he didn't anyway) or 0.00004%.
The end result is the same. And he's going to lose again. Everyone knows it, most of all him. You can tell just by looking at him. He's capitulated already
And that means that when he totters off to the allotment with his huge, gold-plated, taxpayer-funded pension, all he'll have achieved is saddling the rest of us with 7 years of Tory government
*slow handclap for grandad*
Yet in the last election 27.6% of the electorate voted for him.
FTFY
Yep my bad 27.6% of electorate which equals 40% of the vote share.
Were you happy with Ed Binners?
And it’s not as if they haven’t tried that in the past, and look what happened.
Three consecutive general election wins after a decade and a half in the political wilderness, record spending on the NHS, Surestart, Devolution for Scotland/Wales, the National Minimum Wage, The Freedom of Information Act, The Good Friday Agreement...and as a cherry on top, neither Ian Duncan Smith nor Michael Howard running the country.
The blunders and downright deceits of the Blair era - and yes, they are pretty substantial, should not erase its achievements, and the surefire knowledge that we would have even more willingly followed Bush into Afghanistan and Iraq under a Tory government, and without many of the policies that have made life better for people all across the UK.
Are folk really saying they would choose Boris over Blair?
Binners wanted Burnham - a leaver and a racist ( actually just a weak weathervane politician who made both racist comments in his election as manchester mayor and who thinks the referendum should be respected)
Were you happy with Ed Binners?
At the time I thought he was hopeless.
Everything's relative though.
He looks like Barak Obama compared to the ****-wit that followed him
Binners wanted Burnham – a leaver and a racist
I wanted the other Milliband, actually
Opposition parties sticking it to the Conservatives rather than each other…
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1194683810585174016?s=21
What you actually need is a front man who is popular above all else. The polices and governance etc,. go on behind the scenes. The front man gets you into power.
Someone like Ed Balls would have been better placed for that front man role. Unfortunately the party democratically elects their leader and the majority of them are not switched on enough to release you need to get a popular leader in place to win before you can do anything else.
Just like in 1979, theSNP are willing to usher in another heartless Conservative government.
A notion since completely shown to be false by none other than, err, Jim Callaghan 🙂
40 years!!!!
Are folk really saying they would choose Boris over Blair?
I reckon there would be a pretty good chance against the Blair of today among the general public.
NHS: money wasted on PFI etc resulting in hospitals carrying massive debts which are hard to fund once the cash was cut back.
FOI: Blair absolutely hated this and considered it a major mistake.
Good Friday Agreement: a lot of the credit here belongs to the tories. I reckon it would have happened anyway.
I would also say many of the problems we face now around people voting for a change, any change, is in part due to him. The relentless triangulation left many feeling unrepresented.
The electorate ushered in a heartless Tory government in 1979. I believe Labour had the opportunity to field candidates, and were rightly judged on their record. Recycling 40-year-old grudges is really the work of a mature prospective PM.
I reckon there would be a pretty good chance against the Blair of today.
Well yes, if Labour propped up the reanimated, heavily tanned corpse of Blair and tried to get him elected, that wouldn't work either. My point was about fielding a new candidate with a potentially broader, populist appeal.
Ed Balls would not have been better. the epitome of a useless machine politician and one who was badly tainted by his previous actions. the tory press attacks on him would have been easy
Given the lack of talent available its really hard to see who
Now I would have Starmer but at the time too inexperienced
Ed Balls would not have been better.
Yes he would. Clearly more popular with the general public, way more likable than Corbyn, less serious yet can still cut it politically.
The Tory press would be against him as they are against any Labour leader but that doesn't matter as majority of people are not reading it.
Starmer would just send people to sleep
I bloody love the self-indulgent, naval-gazing historical revisionism of the Corbynite lefty brigade
You think Blairism was terrible and endlessly slate it, but how the hell do you think the country would have been looking with 13 years of Tory rule instead? Better? Of course it bloody wouldn't. All the things you rail against (IRAQ!!!!!) would have happened anyway, but absolutely none of the good stuff (listed above) would. If you think otherwise, you're absolutely delusional. Blairism was absolutely necessary and had to happen
Ironically, for all the bleating they do, year after year of Tory rule is all the left has ever delivered. I genuinely believe they're happier in opposition. Corbyn and his crew are quite content when they've something to virtue-signal about and parade their sanctimonious, pious moral indignation while waving their placards . Anything rather than actually engage with the real world.
I can't stand this "Corbyn isn't electable" shit. What these elections have proven is that as soon as Corbyn is allowed to be heard and the Tories policies are scrutinised under the broadcasting rules under an election, people swing to Corbyn.
We're seeing it now in exactly the same way happened with TM. It just depends on how long this exposure goes on for and whether it's enough to allow the swing to take effect.
It's nothing to do with Corbyn's personality, it's entirely down to how the media frame him.
The only way you'd get an "electable" labour leader in the way you mean is if the right wing media find their policies palatable like they did with Blair. The idea that you can have an "electable" frontperson with left wing policies is false imo. Anybody with policies like these would be framed in the same way by Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay/etc just like they did with Milliband.
Kerley - the problem with Balls would have been that he would have been blamed in the tory press for the economic meltdown. See how well the lie that labour caused it has stuck. Now you have one of the people who was at the helm of labour during that period standing for PM. The attacks would have been relentless and they would have stuck
He is also not likeable or personable at all. A unpleasant man who would have been an easy target for the tory press
Just my view.
Alex - the point being made is that Labour could have chosen someone who would have been harder to attack. I am not sure who this mythical person would be although of course somone lelse may not have had labour politicians queueing up to give the tory press attack lines.
I just cannot see who this could have been. It had to be somone not tainted by the false lies about the economic meltdown so that rules out every one of the previous cabinet. All the other candidates at the time corbyn was chosen were much worse IMO
I bloody love the self-indulgent, naval-gazing historical revisionism of the Corbynite lefty brigade
Whereas I love your projection of your failings onto others.
Blairism wasnt necessary. The tories were a spent force but for whatever reason Blair decided the best option was to replace them with an identikit. One of the great whatifs would be if John Smith had lived.
There was nothing forcing him to try and out privatise the tories or to out militarise them. Thats a choice he consciously made in order to continue to try and appeal to the hard right.
He decided to take the country rightwards for short term gain which he clearly knew was unsustainable. Hence why he walked away when he did. Something those masturbating furiously over him miss. He knew he had burnt all the capital and the methods he has used were all gone. It was for others to then deal with the mess.
false lies
Surely a false lie is true?
What these elections have proven is that as soon as Corbyn is allowed to be heard and the Tories policies are scrutinised under the broadcasting rules under an election, people swing to Corbyn
FFS no they don't, they swing to Labour not JC. There's a lot of people that can't stand the Tories and will vote Labour regardless of who is leading it. Unfortunately that's not enough people to get a Labour majority in the next GE (nor was it enough in the last one in case you missed that). That's why JC is a problem whether he deserves to be or not, too many people in the centre of politics will be persuaded they can't take a chance on JC so will vote Tory.
This is politics, it does NOT matter if the politician is actually the person the media portray him as and the public therefore assume he is. All that matters is perception in our screwed up world and JC is toxic because of it. No I can't explain how BoJo is less toxic (to the public majority, not me) but somehow he is and sadly that's what will matter at the GE
Personally I think Labour screwed up badly going for Ed Milliband rather than David but I guess we'll never know
Well spotted Moley - you know what I mean!
So it didn’t matter if he go 40% (which he didn’t anyway) or 0.00004%.
Well it did to an extent, things would have been different if she'd had a big majority. But not much.
SO you can endlessly bang on about media barons, the right wing press, Russian bots, Facebook advertising, Cambridge Analytica, the BBC… whatever… but the bottom line is that while all those things go against you, NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE BELIEVE IN JEREMY CORBYN TO ACTUALLY VOTE FOR HIM
But mate those things are linked. Campaigning has an effect. And social media campaigning is very effective.
The tories were a spent force
And how are this lot looking? John Majors government looks like a model of moral integrity and moderate, competent, principled political efficiency compared to this shower. And instead of Blairs huge 1997 landslide (followed by 2 successive re-elections), Grandad is 10-20% behind them in the polls.
Those are the facts. So you can carry on with your self-indulgent historical revisionism if you like, but its frankly laughable.
Still, ministers are now telling us they’ll let us see the report on Russian interference… after the election. So vote first, get some info you need to judge what’s going on during our political campaigns afterwards. Great.
Grieve still spitting feathers about it not be declassified yet, and so not being able to tell us about it. An honourable man… but it’s not honourable men who win these days, is it. Playing dirty and worrying about it after the votes are cast (if at all) is the winning game plan.
So you can carry on with your self-indulgent historical revisionism if you like, but its frankly laughable.
I am deeply hurt that such an intellectual force such as yourself feels this way. I note the complete failure to actually engage but just to attempt to sneer and claim superiority.
Sadly you are a good example of why we are in such a shit state.
dissonance
Blairism wasnt necessary. The tories were a spent force but
That's a lot of opinion and whatever you define "blairism" AS for many people (voters) the former and the latter are not even related.
Ultimately we are stuck in a groundhog day Sophie's choice yet again.
Today we have: Do you want ERG led Tory's or do you want Corbynite Labour ...
What if ... after decades of education the overwhelming majority don't want to choose EITHER option?
What if .. They reject the dualistic limitations? What if they want another viable option?
I disagree with a lot of what Blair did ... but it was also a response at the time to rejection of this and the same bandwagon Farage clamber onto.
What if … after decades of education the overwhelming majority don’t want to choose EITHER option?
What if .. They reject the dualistic limitations? What if they want another viable option?
The starter for ten is does the "overwhelming majority" want that or is it a minority who would prefer something else?
I have made it repeatedly clear that, unlike some, I do actually want a decent range of choices in British politics. Not simply a "centrist" Labour party, a right of centre Libdem party and an even more right of centre tory party.
The belief of some that the Labour party needs dragging rightwards aka sticking a "moderate" or "centrist" in charge reduces those options especially when the centre ground shifts as the tories try to distinguish themselves. You end up with hard right policies being portrayed as normal and large numbers of people feeling unrepresented and vulnerable to extremists who, at least, pretend to care.
Its not rocket science.
Corbyn has a net approval rating of -40%, that's pretty much been his average for all of 2019.
Blame who you like for this, him, his cronies, the right wing press, Murdoch, Tom Watson or whoever it doesn't matter.
No one is getting into power with an approval rating this bad.
Here's the strange thing about our political system, you need to be in government to implement policies. So if you persist with a leader then the public really dislike, their reasons don't matter only their votes, then you aren't getting into power.
Power to the members Len…
https://twitter.com/bbcnormans/status/1194943893697105926?s=21
This is a reminder why 2019 isn’t 2017 … back then many people who didn’t agree with or like Corbyn were consoled but his promise to give policy making to the party members, looked at what most party members wanted, and then thought “this could evolve in a way I can get behind”… the last few years have seen Len, Milne, Murray and Corbyn use the party system in a way that really worries people as regards what they will do once in #10.
It’s not about left/right/centre, it’s about “do you want this man and his entourage in charge of the country”, and even people who have been life long Labour supporters, wanting it to become more “left wing” and act more in the interest those who need help, are increasingly wary of them.
Who wants Len, Milne & Murray setting the agenda for Corbyn as PM? Hands up…! I thought not.
I’ve decided my strategy with locals now… “Corbyn won’t be the PM of a majority government… so you can vote against Johnson by voting Labour in our seat, without it being a vote for Corbyn”… wish me luck…
Corbyn's use of the selected quote with the fictional full stop is (yet another) instance of what Brexitcast tells me is called: "shit posting" to encourage 'hate sharing'.
If you want something to go viral you put an error in it or a fallacy your opponents will share in order to criticize/correct it. So people spot the lie, but they indignantly share it and you get your key underlying message out which hopefully cuts through. The 350m is the first example I recall in the UK, and it's been constant this election.
We complain about it, but we're to blame. We only share stuff we hate. All the papers do it, if they write measured sane stories nobody shares. If they write distasteful lies it gets shared widely.
a lot of this centrist/left/right framing is nonsense. Do you want to keep foreigners out? Is that left or right, or just nationalist? Do you want workers on boards? Is that left or right, or just following best practise used in other countries? Do your want to invest in new Hospitals? Is that left or right, or just what needs doing due to the age of many of our hospitals?
This. Left/right never meant much, it means nothing these days.
dissonance
The starter for ten is does the “overwhelming majority” want that or is it a minority who would prefer something else?
A bit of BOTH .... I think a majority want "something else" but there are as many versions of that as "Brexit".
Quite honestly I think the current situation illustrates this.
Do you want a chance to stay in Europe and accept fairly had left or do you want ultra right and leave?
It seems to me that BOTH sides of this are using Brexit as a means to get elected with a manifesto and cabinet that would not be elected without
Is Len making up labour party policy on the hoof again?
Letting the membership know what he's decreed once he's announced it in a press conference.
I know Grandad and chums are big supporters of dodgy South American regimes. They certainly seem to like their methods
Ed Balls? Kier Starmer? Come on guys, it's clear as day the next leader should be a woman. Labour should ensure this with an all-female shortlist. Rayner (please!), Long-Bailey, and in the future Pidcock, are all credible leftwing candidates, if you want centrist options then Thornberry, Cooper and Powell fit the bill. If not a female only shortlist, then you can add Clive Lewis and David Lammy into the mix, and Sadiq Khan once he's done with being London mayor. There's a wealth of talent outside of the usual white male options.
Anyway, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Corbyn is leader, no one has had the guts to challenge him since his evisceration of Owen Smith so it's academic. If voters reject Corbyn based on what they read in the Daily Hate, then so be it, they will get what they deserve.
Is Len making up labour party policy on the hoof again?
I think he's representing his members who rightly or wrongly are not big fans of unchecked immigration. He's a trade union leader, not a politician.
Bailey
🤦🏻♂️
Pidcock
🤷🏻♂️
There’s a wealth of talent outside of the usual white male options.
This is very true. They tend to be pushed out of Labour leadership battles early on though. Hopefully it’ll be different next time.
All the other names you mention have real potential, in my humble opinion.
Ed Balls? Kier Starmer? Come on guys, it’s clear as day the next leader should be a woman. Labour should ensure this with an all-female shortlist.
Hmmm... Left wing democracy in action.... ??
if you can't see what's wrong with that statement then I'm truly lost
Left wing democracy in action
Bollox to that. Labour need a female leader. It's long overdue, and if positive discrimination is required then fine by me.
So the opinion of Unite members, or what Len says are the opinions of Unite members, now automatically become Labour Party policy, do they?
Great. All sounds like a fully transparent democratic system to me.
It’s sure to be a vote winner.
I’m waiting for Len to start doing his frequent press conferences stood in front of a broken down, rusting, dogshit brown coloured Austin Allegro and a huge pile of rotting bin bags in the street, as that’s what most people bring to mind when he (very frequently) opens his gob.
Ed Balls? Kier Starmer? Come on guys, it’s clear as day the next leader should be a woman.
The next leader should be someone people would like and vote for because they like them. That is how shallow politics has become and Labour just need to play the game as a way to get into power.
If it has to be a female for some strange reason? then I don't find the female's you have put forward as particularly likable, in fact Long Bailey is the opposite.
And while there is talent (Lammy, Lewis) that does not mean they will appeal to majority of people - I can think of one reason why a lot of people wouldn't like Lammy or Lewis
Do you want a chance to stay in Europe and accept fairly had left or do you want ultra right and leave?
I think your use of "hard left" is somewhat misleading. Unless we believe Binners and co that its all a stalking horse the primary policies being proposed arent exactly hard left.
For the tories again the policies being proposed (although oddly at the moment there arent many since they seem to be busy inventing policies and costings for Labour rather than themselves) are unlikely to be hard right. Take the claims and counter claims about the NHS etc.
Even the policing ones arent exactly hard right its more "we will rehire some of those we sacked".
The power of the ERG outside of brexit negotiations is unclear.
It seems to me that BOTH sides of this are using Brexit as a means to get elected with a manifesto and cabinet that would not be elected without
To some degree.
I honestly believe Johnson supported brexit on the grounds he thought it would lose but he would be able to use the support from the brexiteers to get into power. As he has sort of done but problem is currently he is a tad of a lame duck. Since he started down that path though he doesnt seem to have a reverse gear since he has alienated the more moderates so can only keep going.
Labour are definitely trying to use it in the same way the Libdems etc are. I think the only ones who are truly going the sacrifical route are Sinn Feinn although even there the sacrifice is less than for most.
As for the manifestos see above. Even if either party was planning a proper extreme manifesto they wouldnt be admitting to it.
Long Bailey is the opposite.
Bit harsh.
😉
FFS - is this "Hard left" false narrative still being spouted?
Who on earth on Johnson's team thought it would be a good idea to go to Glastonbury.
Was he just hoping the more hippy types would be too chilled out to protest?
Bollox to that. Labour need a female leader. It’s long overdue, and if positive discrimination is required then fine by me.
As I say .... you can vote for whomever you want so long as it's who/what we dictate and if you disagree it's because you're racist, sexist or homophobic.
Incidentally I actually think they are long overdue and it would be a good idea... but only if people get a choice.
FFS – is this “Hard left” false narrative still being spouted?
Just by those who have trouble reading and mentally have to remove words like "fairly"
I honestly believe Johnson supported brexit on the grounds he thought it would lose but he would be able to use the support from the brexiteers to get into power.
Blimey! We actually agree on something. I think exactly the same. He'd lose heroicaly (how very British), but with his right wing credentials emboldened enough to win him the leadership in the post referendum car crash.
Referendum lost, Brexit shelved for a generation, and Boris in number 10. Job jobbed!
Oops! Didn't quite work out like that
And since then he's had no option but to double down and get more and more extreme as he has became the figurehead for the headbangers who's support he is now dependent on
I think your use of “hard left” is somewhat misleading. Unless we believe Binners and co that its all a stalking horse the primary policies being proposed arent exactly hard left.
For the tories again the policies being proposed (although oddly at the moment there arent many since they seem to be busy inventing policies and costings for Labour rather than themselves) are unlikely to be hard right. Take the claims and counter claims about the NHS etc.
Even the policing ones arent exactly hard right its more “we will rehire some of those we sacked”.
The power of the ERG outside of brexit negotiations is unclear.
I think you missed out the word "fairly" ... but in either case I feel both are stalking horses to some extent. Corbyn is fundamentally honest and so it's hard ... Boris is fundamentally dis-honest (if he even knows what honesty is)... BUT it still looks like Corbyn is exploiting Brexit and the current mess to get people to vote for something they wouldn't. It doesn't sit well with him hence the awkwardness.
I honestly believe Johnson supported brexit on the grounds he thought it would lose but he would be able to use the support from the brexiteers to get into power. As he has sort of done but problem is currently he is a tad of a lame duck. Since he started down that path though he doesnt seem to have a reverse gear since he has alienated the more moderates so can only keep going.
Hence the power of the ERG outside of Brexit.... FFS he sacked almost everyone else.
Blimey! We actually agree on something.
I'd go way past that.... sure that's how it started but he's since got into bed with some fairly dangerous people and couldn't get off the merry go round even if he wanted.
I think you missed out the word “fairly”
Not really. Once you deploy the use of "hard" then it renders any modifier, aside from not, pretty much redundant. What on earth is fairly hard? Middle ground if so why not say it without the prejorative. If not then just go all out.
Hence the power of the ERG outside of Brexit…. FFS he sacked almost everyone else.
Not really. Vast majority of MPs are not ERG. The best guess seems to be about 50 members which have differing opinions outside of their dislike of the EU.
Speaking of the ERG. Whats happened to Rees-Mogg? Has he been left in a locked room in tory central office to avoid him giving more common sense advice. Possibly about the flooding this time.
There is not even anything "fairly" hard left about labour policies. just left of centre social democratic policies
Hard left is nationalisation without compensation. Hard left is confistication of personal assets. Hard left is a fully planned economy.
there is nothing remotely hard left about labour
there is nothing remotely hard left about labour
Such is the domination of the neo-liberal system many have been fooled into thinking that this is the only way it can be. There are, and there always have been alternatives, many of which fit within capitalism itself. There was an interesting article in the grauniad this morning. Those who think the only way to change things is to be in power are wrong (although it's clearly better). Simply forming a credible counterpoint in itself creates positive change. If it's not there (as it wasn't under Blair), then we end up with what we have today.
I know Grandad and chums are big supporters of dodgy South American regimes.
Laughable that you don't understand the US's historic track record in such areas. Laughable.
But then the worst you could say about Swindleson - is she comes across as as bothersome as a teacher...
Laughable that you don’t understand the US’s historic track record in such areas.
Its alright comrade. I've read the Shock Doctrine. You'll not get a more left wing take on the subject than that. I'm not defending the Americans and their foreign policy.
But whats laughable is the ridiculously simplistic lefty 'my enemies enemy is my friend' attitude that any regime that the Americans don't like must automatically be absolutely bloody brilliant and must be praised and supported.
Its a 6th form level of debate that leads to the turning of blind eyes to all manner of human rights abuses, corruption and generally anti-democratic nonsense, as was the case in Bolivia.
Imagine if Trump declared that he was changing the American constitution so that he could run for another term. There would be uproar. Every lefty would be wetting themselves with thunderous indignation. Just imagine the placards!
But someone who calls people 'comrade' does it and its all fine because... erm..... socialism 🙄
Brazen.
Right out of the Trump playbook. Try to cover it up, then say it was perfectly OK to receive dodgy cash from Kremlin-linked individuals.
I wonder what rate of return the Russkies, sorry, Brits, are expecting on their 'investment'?
Someone needs to leak that Russia report, it's clearly highly relevant to the current election.
Imagine if Trump declared that he was changing the American constitution so that he could run for another term.
But someone who calls people ‘comrade’ does it and its all fine
This.
It’s sure to be a vote winner.
You know, when I heard Len had said that, I wondered if there were nascient signs of some cunning strategists in Labour HQ. It sounded like a trial balloon, which parties like to have floated by someone who is deniable, so they can see how the electorate responds. Given that remainers are nearly as concerned with 'immigration' as leavers it wouldn't be the dumbest thing to do. If it sticks, run with it.
play the race card you mean? a shoddy trick and I dont think they are actually that clever. I prefer to think he is merely a numpty
Mind you - its pretty much what Burnham did
The policy itself isn't really the issue. The issue is that the labour conference decides a policy, then Len chips in in a Guardian interview advocating the polar opposite. The following day a full reverse ferret is pulled with the leadership backing Len, against the decision arrived at democratically by the membership at conference
And its not like this is the first time its happened, is it?
How does this fit in with 'restoring democracy to the membership*'?
*As long as they always agree with me. Terms and conditions apply
play the race card you mean
No not at all. The immigration that leavers and remainers are looking at is from the EU. A lot of that is indistinguishable from the 'race' that is already here.
Labour dropping FOM, would loose my vote for sure.
And its not like this is the first time its happened, is it?
Nope. Sometimes it's ego, sometimes incompetence, and sometimes it's strategy. An acknowledgement that the manifesto isn't going to get you elected. Which means that no matter how good your democratically arrived at platform is, it means nothing if you are in opposition.
Elected first. Enact policies later.
The longer this election goes without labour moving the needle, the more of this I suspect you will see.
Apparently Boris had to cancel a trip to a bakery today because of protesters.
It’s a shame as I’m sure he’s into bread.
Bollox to that. Labour need a female leader. It’s long overdue, and if positive discrimination is required then fine by me.
This kind of attitude and policy making is one of the reasons people are abandoning Labour.
benv
This kind of attitude and policy making is one of the reasons people are abandoning Labour.
This one?
*As long as they always agree with me. Terms and conditions apply
No not at all. The immigration that leavers and remainers are looking at is from the EU. A lot of that is indistinguishable from the ‘race’ that is already here.
Ah but they redefined race.... and racism. See
*As long as they always agree with me. Terms and conditions apply
cromolyolly "Playing the race card" is a political trick a old as politics. Whipping up hatred of some group for political gain. Its been used many times in many places including by Burnham in the manchester mayors election
thats the sense I meant it. sorry for not being clear
I still do't think it was intentional policy from labour. Its an old dinosaur chipping his two bobs worth in not understanding he stupidity of doing so
But whats laughable is the ridiculously simplistic lefty ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ attitude that any regime that the Americans don’t like must automatically be absolutely bloody brilliant and must be praised and supported.
Sorry - what?
This kind of attitude and policy making is one of the reasons people are abandoning Labour.
Give over. Tony Blair used positive discrimination through all-women shortlists to completely change the gender balance of the commons and he was rightly universally praised for it. Yet now it's wrong? The labour party needs a female leader, end of.
So then...
We are agreed it is not fair that Corbyn gets traduced by the mostly right wing media and held up as some kind of ageing member of the Baader Meinhof gang.
We are agreed that this would happen, albeit to a lesser (I would say much lesser) extent to any Labour leader.
We wish that Westminster was more like Holyrood.
We wish that more of the electorate were more ‘politically aware’.
Knowing that stuff doesn’t help if we know it, though, does it?
Corbyn is an easy target (not fair, but life isn’t, politics certainly isn’t).
What is Labour’s position on anything?
Are they leave or remain?
Are they pro or anti immigration?
Not only is Corbyn an intrinsically easy target, but his mealy mouthedness trying time walk both sides of the street over Brexit has made it very easy to ‘fill in the gaps’ with falsehoods of all kinds.
He is a liability and a dinosaur.
I will vote for him.
What a ****ing mess.