Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Critise and hold them to account when in power.

They are not in power though and all sensible minds should understand that getting the tories out is the one objective at present, and Starmer and Labour are the only party realistically capable of doing

The labour party have hundreds of MP's and councillors across the country who represent millions of people.

People pay membership fees to be a member of the party.

This whole "hold them to account when they're in power" has only become a thing recently. It was never heard when Corbyn became leader.

I was a member of the labour party who voted Starmer to be leader. I have since taken away my membership and put it towards being a member of my union and will be voting elsewhere at the next election.

What is democracy if we can't hold the opposition to account. Walk round Liverpool, you'll see the results of not holding the labour party to account just because they're not the tories.
 
We are currently suffering the most useless, corrupt and dangerous government that has existed in decades. And the current government show no signs of changing or improving. They keep finding new lows. What is most dangerous in my mind is the possibility of them managing to cling onto power.
Then what happens if this Labour government fail to improve anything? The likes of Braverman aren’t going away.
 
In a 'first past the post'-two party system, you can't be principled. That's the core problem. All other votes are completely wasted. It's an 18th century electoral system we need to evolve to a proportional representation in parliament (in my opinion).

More diversity in parliament, more diverse discussions, more democracy.
You've nailed it.

I like giving Davek gyp in here (he's a wonder to behold when in full flow), but he's right in that the Greens offer a voice that the Labour party currently don't. What puts a lot off vitong for them is the sense it is a 'wasted' vote in many seats. So we see tactical voting to oust the Tories.

Mind you, the current system arguably helped keep dangers like Farage and UKIP in check. Silver lining etc.
 
The labour party have hundreds of MP's and councillors across the country who represent millions of people.

People pay membership fees to be a member of the party.

This whole "hold them to account when they're in power" has only become a thing recently. It was never heard when Corbyn became leader.

I was a member of the labour party who voted Starmer to be leader. I have since taken away my membership and put it towards being a member of my union and will be voting elsewhere at the next election.

What is democracy if we can't hold the opposition to account. Walk round Liverpool, you'll see the results of not holding the labour party to account just because they're not the tories.
There are ~ 400,000 party members versus 10 million who voted for the party in 2019 (not mentioning the tens of millions more who the party would still have to govern for should they win). I think someone at the time said "for the many, not the few", yet there seems to be a sense that the party should exist solely to serve the membership.
 
The labour party have hundreds of MP's and councillors across the country who represent millions of people.

People pay membership fees to be a member of the party.

This whole "hold them to account when they're in power" has only become a thing recently. It was never heard when Corbyn became leader.

I was a member of the labour party who voted Starmer to be leader. I have since taken away my membership and put it towards being a member of my union and will be voting elsewhere at the next election.

What is democracy if we can't hold the opposition to account. Walk round Liverpool, you'll see the results of not holding the labour party to account just because they're not the tories.
Why are you talking about Corbyn?

It is not about members though is it, it is about the voting public.
 
There are ~ 400,000 party members versus 10 million who voted for the party in 2019 (not mentioning the tens of millions more who the party would still have to govern for should they win). I think someone at the time said "for the many, not the few", yet there seems to be a sense that the party should exist solely to serve the membership.
This certainly seems a prevalent view among Corbyn fans.
 
Such a frustrating thread.

Slightest hint of criticism for Starmer and the same old bores are out with their extremely funny jokes.
Their 'jokes' are not only unfunny but also hate crimes on any neuro-divergent posters. Look at how they easily reach for the 'crackpot' insult.

I do hope people who post in the Mental Health thread who may be effected by being neuro-divergent don't look in on this one.
 
Why are you talking about Corbyn?

It is not about members though is it, it is about the voting public.

I mentioned him fleetingly in a post that was clearly making a point about something else.

The labour party still represent a big part of the electorate. Why should we not be holding them to account and wanting better when they are in opposition.
 
We have to be mindful of the fact that we're almost certainly in the foothills of an election cycle, so Starmer is almost certainly trying to appeal to people who jumped into bed with Johnson last time out. That's inevitably going to annoy the core Labour voters as the person Johnson stole votes from was Corbyn. The question for me is more what he's likely to do when he's in office rather than over the next six months.
The question for you surely is how you've made the leap from Lib Dem to Starmer's 'Labour'. Perhaps you could unpack that for us...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top