Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Tree13]

She embarasses herself every time she opens her mouth.

The biggest fraud in politics how Sir Keir hasn't booted her I'll never know.

Momentum won't let him.

Labour still harbours a number of MPs who are abhorrently toxic to any floating voter in the middle ground: Abbott, Burgon, Lammy, Nandy, Thornberry and the like. Starmer does not have full enough control of Labour to get rid of them. Until Labour rids itself of the Momentum elements, the bulk of the country will continue to vote on the basis of "Anyone but those numpties", as is evidenced by the fact that Boris Johnson holds an 80-seat majority in the Commons and Labour just lost 300 local Councillors.

 

[Blue 1]

They are poor people, and sadly poor people can't afford to spend in town centres. Sadly and i'll no doubt be called a racist etc the Pakistani's that have moved into East Lancs are poor and very religion based.

People in towns like mine have seen thriving town centres gone because it has coincided with mass immigration. Muslims won't drink in pubs, don't eat in restaurants. They haven't got much money and have very large families, which in turn makes them poorer.

So you have a town centre with no investment, you have over crowded houses that have been left to look like dumps really. If you have any money you won't live in a town like that.

People move out... pubs can't trade... restaurants shut down... house prices plummet... it's a cycle. And a cycle thats started in areas like mine since immigration.

Funny, there's next to no muslim immigration where I live, it's a pretty rich town that regularly tops "most desirable places to live" lists, yet still most of the pubs have closed over the last 15 years, the town centre is filling up with empty units and there's a growing underbelly of violent crime and it's awash with drugs.

 

[roydo]

People ARE anti freedom of movement.

Until they realise they need a visa, and full immigration/customs clearance, taking hours, to go to Spain for a week.

 

[davek]

Wrong question (as evidenced by the result of the last GE, and the recent by-election in Hartlepool).

People ARE anti freedom of movement. Every time the electorate is asked this question, the answer is clearly given. What is confusing is the continued stubborn refusal of the Labour party to accept this as current fact. Labour either has to start making a strong case FOR freedom of movement, or abandon it as a policy. There's no point continually telling the electorate that they are wrong and then just asking the same question again.

It was disavowed by Starmer in January this year. Dianne Abbott is arguing something she always believed in; Starmer and the Labour leadership - in a staggering u-turn - accept that there wont be that chance to renegotiate the terms of withdrawal from the EU.

 

[Tree13]

Until they realise they need a visa, and full immigration/customs clearance, taking hours, to go to Spain for a week.

Again, ignoring the actual problem.

 

[Blue 1]

She embarasses herself every time she opens her mouth.

The biggest fraud in politics how Sir Keir hasn't booted her I'll never know.

Momentum won't let him.

Labour still harbours a number of MPs who are abhorrently toxic to any floating voter in the middle ground: Abbott, Burgon, Lammy, Nandy, Thornberry and the like. Starmer does not have full enough control of Labour to get rid of them. Until Labour rids itself of the Momentum elements, the bulk of the country will continue to vote on the basis of "Anyone but those numpties", as is evidenced by the fact that Boris Johnson holds an 80-seat majority in the Commons and Labour just lost 300 local Councillors.

Probably more likely because she's very.popular with her constituents, has been an MP since 1987 and sits on a comfortable majority. Why would you remove an MP like that?

She's not on the front bench anymore, so he's "booted" her as far as is reasonable or can be fairly expected.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Wrong question (as evidenced by the result of the last GE, and the recent by-election in Hartlepool).

People ARE anti freedom of movement. Every time the electorate is asked this question, the answer is clearly given. What is confusing is the continued stubborn refusal of the Labour party to accept this as current fact. Labour either has to start making a strong case FOR freedom of movement, or abandon it as a policy. There's no point continually telling the electorate that they are wrong and then just asking the same question again.

Its all ok when the immigrant is serving coffee or the Nandos picking flowers or undercutting Jim the plumber electrician builder etc. But know your place don't settle don't live next door, don't send kids to same school as the indigenous types, just don't compete, know your place immigrant.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Wrong question (as evidenced by the result of the last GE, and the recent by-election in Hartlepool).

People ARE anti freedom of movement. Every time the electorate is asked this question, the answer is clearly given. What is confusing is the continued stubborn refusal of the Labour party to accept this as current fact. Labour either has to start making a strong case FOR freedom of movement, or abandon it as a policy. There's no point continually telling the electorate that they are wrong and then just asking the same question again.

Agree that Labour need to make a strong case for. We’ll see how anti freedom of movement people remain when they’re stuck in passport queues for ages or struggle to get work and live in the EU.

 

[Tree13]

Probably more likely because she's very.popular with her constituents, has been an MP since 1987 and sits on a comfortable majority. Why would you remove an MP like that?

She's not on the front bench anymore, so he's "booted" her as far as is reasonable or can be fairly expected.

I'm not questioning her as a constituency MP. I don't live in her constituency, so am not in any position to comment on her effectiveness or popularity as a constituency MP.

Abbott is damaging to a Labour party on a wider reputational basis, and another Labour MP with a less high-profile track record of utter stupidity would erase some of that reputational damage without losing the constituency (presuming it's a safe seat).

 

[Tree13]

Its all ok when the immigrant is serving coffee or the Nandos picking flowers or undercutting Jim the plumber electrician builder etc. But know your place don't settle don't live next door, don't send kids to same school as the indigenous types, just don't compete, know your place immigrant.

How does that address the issue being discussed?

Does such a response encourage the electorate to engage further with you, or reject you and vote for someone else?

 

[Tree13]

Lads, sorry for wading in and responding to a bunch of posts in quick succession.

I normally avoid this thread because I am a Conservative voter who lives in the South. I'm only popping in briefly to find out what you all think about the recent local election results / mayoral results / PCC results. Emphatically NOT trying to gloat.

Where do you think Labour has gone wrong? How do you feel about Rayner being held responsible for the failure of the campaign? Are you keen on Starmer staying in place and getting Momentum under control, or would you prefer to see Momentum back in the ascendancy? (I don't see that there's a third alternative, but would like to hear anyone's thoughts on that).

I would like to see a stronger, more effective Labour party because our political system will always a viable, competent opposition. At the moment Labour is the opposition but isn't pushing the government hard enough, in my humble opinion.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I'm not questioning her as a constituency MP. I don't live in her constituency, so am not in any position to comment on her effectiveness or popularity as a constituency MP.

Abbott is damaging to a Labour party on a wider reputational basis, and another Labour MP with a less high-profile track record of utter stupidity would erase some of that reputational damage without losing the constituency (presuming it's a safe seat).

I dunno. If you listen to the vitriol levelled at the likes of Abbott, (who I’m not a massive fan of but is relatively harmless) compared with Grayling, who had literally cost the tax payer millions you kinda wonder if something else is going on.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

How does that address the issue being discussed?

Does such a response encourage the electorate to engage further with you, or reject you and vote for someone else?

Because that is what it boils down to is being a racist. People need to wear the label and say what they mean and not pretend to have some intellectual debate about how they are not. Of course if people lives generally improved wages home prospects, services etc. This free movement debate would go away in an instance. Labour will win the debate in the end they almost always do.

 

[Tree13]

I dunno. If you listen to the vitriol levelled at the likes of Abbott, (who I’m not a massive fan of but is relatively harmless) compared with Grayling, who had literally cost the tax payer millions you kinda wonder if something else is going on.

Grayling is an absolute moron. No argument from me there.

 

[Tree13]

Because that is what it boils down to is being a racist. People need to wear the label and say what they mean and not pretend to have some intellectual debate about how they are not. Of course if people lives generally improved wages home prospects, services etc. This free movement debate would go away in an instance.

Ok, but don't you see how that comes across to the electorate? EVEN if you are right, the approach you're advocating is to berate the electorate and criticise them for voting the way the have. This doesn't do anything to inform them, or to persuade them to open their eyes to other possibilities, so why on Earth would they vote differently if asked the same question again a year later?