Current Affairs The Labour Party

[mahermi1]

This is what passes for debate from you two.

No Dave that's what passes for taking the piss, get over it.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

This is what passes for debate from you two.

Thanks mate x

 

[mahermi1]

You can vote for who you like Dave, it's a free country (unlike in your pal Vlad's 'elections' coming this year). If you're in a safe seat then maybe a strong showing for a Green candidate might move the needle on your local MP's viewpoint. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

But when you start arguing as to what others should do then your arguments become fair targets for criticism, especially when it aligns with Tory objectives.

And when you keep throwing weird tantrums over Starmer personally by making stuff up, then your oversights need to be corrected. You wouldn't want to "inadvertently mislead" the forum, would you?

Excellent post.

 

[Xizor]

So here's a quick thought experiment for the evening, as I'm in good cheer.

Let's assume that Dave's claim that the 100k+ ex-Labour members, plus whatever other Socialist bigwigs are out there, are indeed full on building these networks needed to launch a new True Socialist party ahead of the election-but-one. Let's assume they're serious players, not just the Leftist version of Reform or whatever, a cult built around one man - no, these guys are an electoral threat, just as Dave predicts they will be.

Now indulge me a moment. In this hypothetical state of affairs, what exactly is to be gained by the previous 4/5 years being under a Sunak/Braverman government instead of a Starmer one? Why exactly is it necessary to let the Tories stick in power for a cycle before these new Socialist bods make their appearance at the ballot box? It seems to be 'step 1' of the plan, but I've never stopped to ask why that bit's important.

Any enlightenment forthcoming on this? Why is it so important to lock Starmer out of power ahead of the People's (Democratic) Uprising?

 

[davek]

So here's a quick thought experiment for the evening, as I'm in good cheer.
Let's assume that Dave's claim that the 100k+ ex-Labour members, plus whatever other Socialist bigwigs are out there, are indeed full on building these networks needed to launch a new True Socialist party ahead of the election-but-one. Let's assume they're serious players, not just the Leftist version of Reform or whatever, a cult built around one man - no, these guys are an electoral threat, just as Dave predicts they will be.
Now indulge me a moment. In this hypothetical state of affairs, what exactly is to be gained by the previous 4/5 years being under a Sunak/Braverman government instead of a Starmer one? Why exactly is it necessary to let the Tories stick in power for a cycle before these new Socialist bods make their appearance at the ballot box? It seems to be 'step 1' of the plan, but I've never stopped to ask why that bit's important.

Any enlightenment forthcoming on this? Why is it so important to lock Starmer out of power ahead of the People's (Democratic) Uprising?

It's got nothing to do with the Official Tories being in power or out of it.

170,000 LP members didn't flee Starmer's nu-conservatives with any thought of their actions having the effect of it making it more or less probable that the Official Tories would get re-elected.

They left because they could no longer distinguish a definite cleavage between their own former party's politics and the Tory Government's. They've got out so that they can either leave politics all together - sickened by the right wing parliamentary LP and their dictatorship over the membership and their acknowledged racism to black party members - or to form an alternative. The rumblings of a party gathering about Corbyn's old team are there and I'd expect that when the Manchurian Candidate gets in and shows the iron fist to workers that a whole raft of unions will desert that party - as many other unions have done - and back an alternative.

I would't be surprised to find that the 50 or so left wingers left in Starmer's parliamentary party abandon that lot and head up any new party. The only thing that can stop that rupture is if Starmer and his cabal are sensationally outside and a more left-centre figure like Clive Lewis is installed...and that looks remote right now.

 

[Xizor]

That all sounds great Dave, but doesn't explain why you're so keen to see the Tories get back in as part of the march towards the end goal. You take repeated personal swipes at Starmer in your LP posts for some reason and continually exhort others not to vote for him "or live with it on their conscience", but it apparently doesn't matter one way or the other ahead of this glorious revolution coming at the end of the decade.

So what gives, chum? Can we not give Keir Rodney the Plonker the reins for a bit and then still get the Socialist Utopia that was foretold when Corbyn's Loyalist Core arise and give him a right old electoral kicking?

 

[davek]

That all sounds great Dave, but doesn't explain why you're so keen to see the Tories get back in as part of the march towards the end goal. You take repeated personal swipes at Starmer in your LP posts for some reason and continually exhort others not to vote for him "or live with it on their conscience", but it apparently doesn't matter one way or the other ahead of this glorious revolution coming at the end of the decade.

So what gives, chum? Can we not give Keir Rodney the Plonker the reins for a bit and then still get the Socialist Utopia that was foretold when Corbyn's Loyalist Core arise and give him a right old electoral kicking?

And rightly so. He's filth.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

That all sounds great Dave, but doesn't explain why you're so keen to see the Tories get back in as part of the march towards the end goal. You take repeated personal swipes at Starmer in your LP posts for some reason and continually exhort others not to vote for him "or live with it on their conscience", but it apparently doesn't matter one way or the other ahead of this glorious revolution coming at the end of the decade.

So what gives, chum? Can we not give Keir Rodney the Plonker the reins for a bit and then still get the Socialist Utopia that was foretold when Corbyn's Loyalist Core arise and give him a right old electoral kicking?

It is the same with Putin and zelenskyy

 

[Xizor]

And rightly so. He's filth.

But you're otherwise unconcerned about him being the next PM before the Socialists get in? Because you don't seem to be fussed about answering that bit, so one can only assume it's not a big deal to you...

... which is a bit at odds over some other stuff you post. Just trying to make some sense of your position, which seems a bit flip-floppish. Almost Starmer-like in that regard actually.

Is it important to keep Starmer out of no 10 during the next election or not? And if so, why? Shouldn't be too hard to answer for someone so energised on the subject.

 

[COYBL25]

But you're otherwise unconcerned about him being the next PM before the Socialists get in? Because you don't seem to be fussed about answering that bit, so one can only assume it's not a big deal to you...

... which is a bit at odds over some other stuff you post. Just trying to make some sense of your position, which seems a bit flip-floppish. Almost Starmer-like in that regard actually.

Is it important to keep Starmer out of no 10 during the next election or not? And if so, why? Shouldn't be too hard to answer for someone so energised on the subject.

The way I interpret his stance on this, is that he sees another four years of Tory ruination as a necessary evil on the road to his Socialist Nirvana ?

Same as he sees handing over Ukranian land to mad bad Vlad, as a necessary evil to getting rid of the " corrupt " Action Man and his shopaholic wife.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Chairmen, sorry, Chairperson Jones has spoken. Wait for the regurgitated smatterings from resident acolytes.

 

[davek]

But you're otherwise unconcerned about him being the next PM before the Socialists get in? Because you don't seem to be fussed about answering that bit, so one can only assume it's not a big deal to you...

... which is a bit at odds over some other stuff you post. Just trying to make some sense of your position, which seems a bit flip-floppish. Almost Starmer-like in that regard actually.

Is it important to keep Starmer out of no 10 during the next election or not? And if so, why? Shouldn't be too hard to answer for someone so energised on the subject.

You;ve lost your way in this debate.

 

[davek]

Keir Starmer is a member of this commission:

The Trilateral Commission is headed by an executive committee and three regional chairs representing Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, with headquarters in Paris, Washington, D.C., and Tokyo, respectively. Meetings are held annually at locations that rotate among the three regions; regional and national meetings are held throughout the year.

The Trilateral Commission represents influential commercial and political interests. As of 2021, there were roughly 400 members, including leading figures in politics, business, media, and academia. Each country within the three regions is assigned a quota of members reflecting its relative political and economic strength.

Social critic and academic Noam Chomsky has criticized the commission as undemocratic, pointing to its key publication The Crisis of Democracy, which describes the strong popular interest in politics during the 1970s as an "excess of democracy" He has cited it as one of the most interesting and insightful books showing the modern democratic system not to really be a democracy at all, but controlled by elites who seek to keep the general public disengaged from genuine democratic participation by subtle and mostly non-violent methods and to redefine democracy itself in operative terms that enshrine their own interests as a tiny privileged minority. Chomsky adds that as it was an internal discussion, they felt free to "let their hair down" and to talk openly about the need for an increasingly active and defiant public to be reduced back to its proper state of apathy and obedience lest it continue to use democratic means to deprive them of their power.

Beware the Manchurian Candidate.

 

[Xizor]

You;ve lost your way in this debate.

What debate? There's me asking you a simple question and you trying to squirm away from answering.

This is something you're clearly passionate about and yet you're terrified of having to reveal why.

Make it make sense Dave. Why do you want to see Starmer defeated so badly? It doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the plan.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Our PM in waiting speaking very well there.