Current Affairs The Labour Party

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

I get this, but think I just have a different framing.

Voting in elections is almost always about picking the least worst option. Rarely is a political party going to align very well with an individuals ideological preference. Voter turnout tells you that much.

As it stands, Labour could run on a manifesto identical to the tories, and you could still make a case to vote for them, as the Tories have demonstrated themselves to govern with massive levels of corruption and incompetence.

But as per my above post there are tangible differences which will have real world impacts.

Agreed. This is a terrible way of voting, by selecting one candidate we (as a system) are extracting the least amount of data possible from a voter, a better way of doing it would be to vote in ranked lists. You may not get your first choice candidate rather your third choice candidate, there would be much more consensus compared to the completely polarizing options we have now.

Another way to fix politics is to make the pay commensurate with the job and implement term limits, you wonder why government roles attract slimy, corrupt and dishonest people who want a job for life is because the pay is not good enough to attract better people. If you could make £100k as an MP or £1,000,000 in the private sector, why would you take a 10x lower salary.

 

[spectateur]

Starmer reportedly (on ITV this morning) now making it clear that labour would never consider reentry to the EU, or even free movement or even the single market or customs union.
Labour also doesn't support electoral reform.
How can they be considered as an opposition or an alternative to the present shower.

 

[degsy]

The Labour Party even under Blair had a programme that attempted to close the gap in terms of living standards and taking a bit more control over the economy. What sets this lot apart - despite all their bollocks about consulting trade unions where it's appropriate - is that they are a dyed in the wool capitalist party and proud of it.

I know Mandelson under Blair was famously caught saying "I'm very relaxed about people becoming filthy rich", but he was by no means typical of even Blairism. Starmer's words however are "we're not just a pro-business party, we're a party that is proud of being pro-business"...which in conjunction with the broken promises to poorer families is a declaration that something qualitatively has changed.

The day an alternative to 'Labour' is set up then this lot will fold. Momentum have the rank and file membership and dynamism to cut free from Starmer's party, and there's plenty of unaffiliated trade unions they could tap into for funding. I can see that happening once this lot get in and sicken for good working class people from ever countenancing handing them their support again.

lol Dave, one of the reasons the Labour Party is not the same as it was 50+yrs ago, is, strange as it may seem is - it's a different world 50+yrs on.
We still need a counterweight to the Tories, but not Dinosaur hard left Corbynism which - as proved by election results  And the fact they got rid of him.

As to becoming filthy rich. I 'clocked In' and worked with my hands and brain for 45yrs...I lived and voted in Huyton for Wilson.
I'm not filthy rich, and I'm not existing by eating cat food either - but you can colour me slightly dusty if you like.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Starmer reportedly (on ITV this morning) now making it clear that labour would never consider reentry to the EU, or even free movement or even the single market or customs union.
Labour also doesn't support electoral reform.
How can they be considered as an opposition or an alternative to the present shower.

You can only hope that they're saying that so as not to give the Tories "anti-democracy, denying the will of the people" ammunition. Realistically though, we're going to be out for a generation.

 

[mightymoyes]

lol Dave, one of the reasons the Labour Party is not the same as it was 50+yrs ago, is, strange as it may seem is - it's a different world 50+yrs on.
We still need a counterweight to the Tories, but not Dinosaur hard left Corbynism which - as proved by election results  And the fact they got rid of him.

As to becoming filthy rich. I 'clocked In' and worked with my hands and brain for 45yrs...I lived and voted in Huyton for Wilson.
I'm not filthy rich, and I'm not existing by eating cat food either - but you can colour me slightly dusty if you like.

sick of people saying this without evidence, name one 'hard left' policy he had

 

[degsy]

sick of people saying this without evidence, name one 'hard left' policy he had

1) I'm not about to clog up this space with pages and pages of Corbyns 2019 manifesto of failure.
2) I don't have to because the voters did that for me by comprehensively rejecting the whole deal.
Previous 'left' with a small 'ell' labour voters moved right, just how and why is for another debate.
But they Did, they move Right
Not Left.
QED

 

[mightymoyes]

1) I'm not about to clog up this space with pages and pages of Corbyns 2019 manifesto of failure.
2) I don't have to because the voters did that for me by comprehensively rejecting the whole deal.
Previous 'left' with a small 'ell' labour voters moved right, just how and why is for another debate.
But they Did, they move Right
Not Left.
QED

a lot of words to say none then, thanks.

 

[degsy]

a lot of words to say none then, thanks.

My pleasure

Much like the hard left then lol

 

[tsubaki]

My pleasure

Much like the hard left then lol

Just as an aside, have you asked yourself why you refer to him as “hard left”?

 

[degsy]

Just as an aside, have you asked yourself why you refer to him as “hard left”?

I know, its a bit of an easy and vague catch all, which doesn't probably do him total justice
If he (and his supporters) aren't 'that' - left of Starmer, why the alleged 'purge' of whatever 'they' are

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

sick of people saying this without evidence, name one 'hard left' policy he had

it doesn't matter if he was or he wasn't, people perceived him to be hard left and so he was never going to win.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Just as an aside, have you asked yourself why you refer to him as “hard left”?

Come now. Corbyn regularly contributes to Morning Star, which last time I checked was created by the Communist Party. His Head of Strategy was a long-time advocate of communism (as indeed was Corbyn himself). McDonnell likewise was quite open about his communist leanings, and the Corbyn regime had ardent support from the likes of Andrew Murray and the Communist Party itself.

This marked a significant change for the party, which had always opposed communism and through the Attlee administration helped to create NATO in direct response to the communism in the USSR. To portray Corbyn as the true face of Labour is utterly absurd. He was the far left wing of the party.

 

[mightymoyes]

it doesn't matter if he was or he wasn't, people perceived him to be hard left and so he was never going to win.

but it was a deliberate ploy by his own party and the media to lie.
i find it hilarious these same ghouls talk then waffle about democracy

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bonkers stuff. It was mentioned earlier that since Brexit the Tories have become like UKIP were, which is undoubtedly true, but there seems a reluctance to accept that under Corbyn Labour had a similar shift to the left, when he has spent his entire career being the left version of Farage.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

but it was a deliberate ploy by his own party and the media to lie.
i find it hilarious these same ghouls talk then waffle about democracy

Are you saying Corbyn wasn't far left? To try and paint him as some moderate left candidate is just wrong.