Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Starmer speaks for the nation – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited February 19 in General
Starmer speaks for the nation – politicalbetting.com

Do you think Labour should allow Jeremy Corbyn to stand as a Labour candidate at the next electionShould: 24%Should not: 52%https://t.co/FU4dtpuOYR pic.twitter.com/E0x8pGLzCj

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Like Al Haig, I'm in charge this afternoon.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    "What this does show Corbyn is willing to do anything and everything to win the next election and become Prime Minister, such ruthlessness is likely to be an advantage for Labour at the next election."

    LOL
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 21,953

    "What this does show Corbyn is willing to do anything and everything to win the next election and become Prime Minister, such ruthlessness is likely to be an advantage for Labour at the next election."

    LOL

    Huge if true.
  • Just imagine if we were all allowed to mark our own homework.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Nicola Bulley's disappearance not currently being investigated by police watchdog

    Lancashire Police has not referred itself to the IOPC because it does not believe opportunities were missed, The Telegraph understands


    The police watchdog is not currently investigating the case of Nicola Bulley because officers do not believe they missed opportunities to prevent her disappearance.

    As Lancashire Police faces a growing backlash over its response, The Telegraph understands the force has not referred itself to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC).

    Forces have a mandatory obligation to refer themselves to the watchdog when they have had prior contact with someone before they die or suffer serious injury.

    Police were called to Ms Bulley's home in Inskip on Jan 10 over a concern for welfare before she disappeared just over two weeks ago. However, the force has not been referred itself because police do not believe her disappearance was linked to mistakes by officers.

    If Ms Bulley had been the victim of a crime following a call-out, the case would be investigated by the watchdog.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/16/nicola-bulley-police-watchdog-not-investigating-case/
  • "What this does show Corbyn is willing to do anything and everything to win the next election and become Prime Minister, such ruthlessness is likely to be an advantage for Labour at the next election."

    LOL

    Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.

    Ahem.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 51,522

    Like Al Haig, I'm in charge this afternoon.

    That went well, too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 51,522
    edited February 16
    A lot of Democrats agree with Mike. They're just not willing to say do.

    Senior Democrats’ Private Take on Biden: He’s Too Old
    They worry a lot about an 82-year-old nominee, but fear the battle that would ensue if he pulls out.
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/16/senior-democrats-joe-biden-old-00083129
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 35,667
    Sandpit said:

    AlistairM said:
    The other thing to note, is the extent that the Russians have regressed as an army in technical terms. The human wave assaults with some artillery backing are reminiscent of the German tactics in the later part of WWII as the panzer divisions ran out of tanks.

    When they were opposed with armies with armour and combined arms tactics, they were slaughtered.
    WWII is to be kind to them. In recent weeks it’s been more like WWI for the mobliks.
    In this excellent book - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Army-Soldiers-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0195079035 - the process of de-modernisation on the Eastern front is described. And how it fuelled the atrocities.

    - Technology vanishing
    - Chain of command destroyed by heavy losses among officers and NCOs
    - Humans used to replace machines
    - Savage disciple used to hold the line
    - Looting encouraged within certain parameters. Torture and murder of civilians accepted and even encouraged.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,697
    I agree with all this. Starmer is showing an admirable ruthlessness

    I like it
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    I suppose the 24% think that anti-semitism is a price worth paying for an out there lefty to be in charge of the Labour Party.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 4,853
    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    "What this does show Corbyn is willing to do anything and everything to win the next election and become Prime Minister, such ruthlessness is likely to be an advantage for Labour at the next election."

    LOL

    Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.

    Ahem.
    Elementary Freudian psychology. Your mis-speaking is what you secretly desire.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 35,667
    OT : If you make party policy solely on the basis of what your core voters want, you end up with

    100% of your core voters
    0% of anyone else

    What does that remind people of?
  • The simple reality is that Jeremy Corbyn has always been loyal to Jeremy Corbyn. He rebelled against the Labour whip endlessly during the Blair era. That means voting literally with the Tories on hundreds of occasions.

    And whilst he was doing so much of the "Jeremy was Framed / Its a Con" brigade were not in the Labour movement. They had scabbed off into various groups like TUSC and SHA and SLP. They joined Labour under Corbyn and have mostly now left.

    There are far far more votes to be won by keeping the hard left in a box than there are being friends.
  • "What this does show Corbyn is willing to do anything and everything to win the next election and become Prime Minister, such ruthlessness is likely to be an advantage for Labour at the next election."

    LOL

    Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.

    Ahem.
    Elementary Freudian psychology. Your mis-speaking is what you secretly desire.
    Freud was a pervert.

    I'm a Jungian.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 47,251
    Unlikely that Corbyn would have been a candidate anyway but this is still a win for Starmer. The floating voters he needs will like the acknowledgment that Labour made a grievous error in putting that man up for PM. Twice.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 16,545

    OT : If you make party policy solely on the basis of what your core voters want, you end up with

    100% of your core voters
    0% of anyone else

    What does that remind people of?

    Big John Owls?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,697
    Can you have a great day if it involves visiting a globally notorious death camp?

    A conundrum. Yet today was, for me, in some weird way, a great day. Fascinating, compelling, moving, saddening, and it ends with beautiful drinks by the Mekong and now top notch fish curry as Phnom Penh speeds below. And nice wine

    Weird
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 16,545
    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    One could feel the intense PB Tory pain on the previous thread that their hero and obsession had been kicked out by Royale. Tea and sympathy all round.
  • Nigelb said:

    Like Al Haig, I'm in charge this afternoon.

    That went well, too.
    I'm a fan of Al Haig's career, he misspoke once and that's what everybody remembers.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,466
    Leon said:

    I agree with all this. Starmer is showing an admirable ruthlessness

    I like it

    It's hard on Corbyn :/ but it's for the greater good of defeating the Tories :)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 35,667

    The simple reality is that Jeremy Corbyn has always been loyal to Jeremy Corbyn. He rebelled against the Labour whip endlessly during the Blair era. That means voting literally with the Tories on hundreds of occasions.

    And whilst he was doing so much of the "Jeremy was Framed / Its a Con" brigade were not in the Labour movement. They had scabbed off into various groups like TUSC and SHA and SLP. They joined Labour under Corbyn and have mostly now left.

    There are far far more votes to be won by keeping the hard left in a box than there are being friends.

    But Jeremy Corbyn is Right!

    Marx himself arose from the dead to give him the Tablets. As the Blessed Prophet his word is perfect. And should be law.

    How could he owe loyalty to anything else, but himself?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    Talking of anti-semites.

    Yesterday I went to see The Lehman Trilogy and one of the three Lehman brothers (sons of a Bavarian Jewish cattle merchant) was played (fantastically) by Michael Balogun. Black bloke.

    A black bloke was playing a 19th century Jewish merchant from Bavaria. And after 1.7 minutes you forget all about it and are entranced by his performance and the play (Nigel Lindsay best thing since Four Lions and that's saying something).

    I wonder however whether a white actor playing, say, Malcolm X, would have been equally as allowed and forgettable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 51,522

    "What this does show Corbyn is willing to do anything and everything to win the next election and become Prime Minister, such ruthlessness is likely to be an advantage for Labour at the next election."

    LOL

    Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.

    Ahem.
    Elementary Freudian psychology. Your mis-speaking is what you secretly desire.
    Freud was a pervert.

    I'm a Jungian.
    And it is your collective class unconscious which prompted the mistake.
  • Cookie said:

    If Labour can offload Jez - and Lloyd Russell Moyle, Richard Burgon, Nadia Whittome and the other nutjobs - then he does a lot to make his party more electable, and well done him.
    It does make you wonder though if he thinks Jez so far beyond the pale how he served in his shadow cabinet for several years.

    Tbh I doubt it makes much difference one way or the other who is thrown out. Boris ruthlessly kneecapped half the blue team and still won a landslide.
  • TOPPING said:

    Talking of anti-semites.

    Yesterday I went to see The Lehman Trilogy and one of the three Lehman brothers (sons of a Bavarian Jewish cattle merchant) was played (fantastically) by Michael Balogun. Black bloke.

    A black bloke was playing a 19th century Jewish merchant from Bavaria. And after 1.7 minutes you forget all about it and are entranced by his performance and the play (Nigel Lindsay best thing since Four Lions and that's saying something).

    I wonder however whether a white actor playing, say, Malcolm X, would have been equally as allowed and forgettable.

    I saw Sir Patrick Stewart play a modern day white Othello a few years ago.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 51,522
    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    And either way, better now than is six months' time, or next year.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 12,366
    Leon said:

    Can you have a great day if it involves visiting a globally notorious death camp?

    A conundrum. Yet today was, for me, in some weird way, a great day. Fascinating, compelling, moving, saddening, and it ends with beautiful drinks by the Mekong and now top notch fish curry as Phnom Penh speeds below. And nice wine

    Weird

    You ended the day still alive and still able to enjoy some of life's pleasures. I'd imagine that being reminded of how easily millions can have that cruelly denied them by being caught up in a massive genocide would naturally lead you to appreciate those pleasures to a greater extent.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    edited February 16

    TOPPING said:

    Talking of anti-semites.

    Yesterday I went to see The Lehman Trilogy and one of the three Lehman brothers (sons of a Bavarian Jewish cattle merchant) was played (fantastically) by Michael Balogun. Black bloke.

    A black bloke was playing a 19th century Jewish merchant from Bavaria. And after 1.7 minutes you forget all about it and are entranced by his performance and the play (Nigel Lindsay best thing since Four Lions and that's saying something).

    I wonder however whether a white actor playing, say, Malcolm X, would have been equally as allowed and forgettable.

    I saw Sir Patrick Stewart play a modern day white Othello a few years ago.
    Yes Othello and (black/female/etc) Lears is quite a thing.

    But we are dealing with biography, albeit dramatised biography here, rather than the Bard. So it seems somehow different.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 35,667
    TOPPING said:

    Talking of anti-semites.

    Yesterday I went to see The Lehman Trilogy and one of the three Lehman brothers (sons of a Bavarian Jewish cattle merchant) was played (fantastically) by Michael Balogun. Black bloke.

    A black bloke was playing a 19th century Jewish merchant from Bavaria. And after 1.7 minutes you forget all about it and are entranced by his performance and the play (Nigel Lindsay best thing since Four Lions and that's saying something).

    I wonder however whether a white actor playing, say, Malcolm X, would have been equally as allowed and forgettable.

    IIRC Patrick Stewart did a version of Othello where he played Othello and all the other characters were played by black actors....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931
    edited February 16
    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 12,366
    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    Indeed. He might have principles. Or be capable of feeling empathy.
  • Cookie said:

    If Labour can offload Jez - and Lloyd Russell Moyle, Richard Burgon, Nadia Whittome and the other nutjobs - then he does a lot to make his party more electable, and well done him.
    It does make you wonder though if he thinks Jez so far beyond the pale how he served in his shadow cabinet for several years.

    Because that is politics. Had he not done so, he would not now be Labour leader heading to Downing Street. Labour would have been led by another one of the nutters - perhaps my Diane Abbott tip would have paid off.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 12,366
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 39,733
    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Hopefully he stands as an independent and wins it or at least makes sure Labour lose it. Benito Starmer is a duffer.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,810
    edited February 16
    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    I'd lose the flags, I think.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,810
    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    I suppose at least he isn't advocating genocide...

    But I disagree. I don't think those are good attributes in a leader.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,468
    edited February 16
    Nigelb said:

    A lot of Democrats agree with Mike. They're just not willing to say do.

    Senior Democrats’ Private Take on Biden: He’s Too Old
    They worry a lot about an 82-year-old nominee, but fear the battle that would ensue if he pulls out.
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/16/senior-democrats-joe-biden-old-00083129

    I remain convinced that the Democrats best chance of winning the next election is through Biden.

    A new candidate will run into issues defining themselves and whether they are for or against Biden’s policies.

    Biden has been low key successful in many ways, and not the electoral poison many thought he would be in November.

    The best matchup for Democrats is a Biden-Trump rematch. If the GOP go for anyone else it puts the Democrats on the back foot, but I am still not sure I see any of the other Democratic possibilities outperforming Biden in that scenario.


  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 6,291

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    Keep the flags, but tax them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 108,337
    edited February 16
    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    A former boss said to colleagues that I was good at my job because I wasn’t squeamish about drowning kittens.

    (Not literally, metaphorically, I’d like to stress)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    "What this does show Corbyn is willing to do anything and everything to win the next election and become Prime Minister, such ruthlessness is likely to be an advantage for Labour at the next election."

    LOL

    Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.

    Ahem.
    Elementary Freudian psychology. Your mis-speaking is what you secretly desire.
    Freud was a pervert.

    I'm a Jungian.
    Talking of antisemites ...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 22,040

    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    A former boss said to colleagues that I was good at my job because I wasn’t squeamish about drowning kittens.

    (Not literally, metaphorically, I’d like to stress)
    you lost your kudos with that last sentence, cats are inherently evil
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,761
    If you've got a spare 10 minutes then I really enjoyed this article. The author first visited Bakhmut over 10 years ago and this is about his time there then and revisiting more recently.

    https://www.ft.com/content/f1983056-c34f-4646-946a-6328200d65e7
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 35,667

    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    A former boss said to colleagues that I was good at my job because I wasn’t squeamish about drowning kittens.

    (Not literally, metaphorically, I’d like to stress)
    How about market making for Elderly Relative Collateralised Obligations?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 4,853
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    One feature of Labour governments and oppositions in my lifetime (admittedly that’s one government plus many oppositions, or two governments counting the last years of Callaghan) has been that when they turn right, they tend to go authoritarian and a tad nationalist.

    There is a centralising authoritarian tradition in the Labour Party which is the main reason I remain a Lib Dem despite us being below 10% in the polls. I am crossing my fingers Starmer won’t feel the need to start going all hang-em and flog-em or exit ECHR in office.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,090

    I think Labour now have an opportunity to have their case heard in Scotland for the first time in almost a decade. Whether they make that case and how it lands is more uncertain. But at least they have some agency in the process now.
    It would be ironic if SLAB were left holding the GRR parcel when the music stopped:



    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-no-regrets-over-29216326.amp
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    Fighting to keep the anti-semitic fire burning.
  • LDLFLDLF Posts: 122
    edited February 16
    Cookie said:

    If Labour can offload Jez - and Lloyd Russell Moyle, Richard Burgon, Nadia Whittome and the other nutjobs - then he does a lot to make his party more electable, and well done him.
    It does make you wonder though if he thinks Jez so far beyond the pale how he served in his shadow cabinet for several years.

    Indeed - I am considering voting Labour this time round on the firm assurance that Starmer was lying to us for four-and-a-half years. A strange platform, but I'm still considering it.

    It would, in my view, be a valid Tory (and indeed Lib Dem) attack line on Starmer: something along the lines of, 'why was he intensely relaxed to put in Number 10 a man he now considers so racist and beyond the pale as to be unworthy of the party whip? If, as we are constantly now assured, he had 'private doubts' in the 2015-19 period, why does he have unsufficient respect with the public to have been sincere with them in that same period?' I don't think it would work that well as an attack line, but it's worth a shot when you're as far behind as the other parties are.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085

    TOPPING said:

    Talking of anti-semites.

    Yesterday I went to see The Lehman Trilogy and one of the three Lehman brothers (sons of a Bavarian Jewish cattle merchant) was played (fantastically) by Michael Balogun. Black bloke.

    A black bloke was playing a 19th century Jewish merchant from Bavaria. And after 1.7 minutes you forget all about it and are entranced by his performance and the play (Nigel Lindsay best thing since Four Lions and that's saying something).

    I wonder however whether a white actor playing, say, Malcolm X, would have been equally as allowed and forgettable.

    IIRC Patrick Stewart did a version of Othello where he played Othello and all the other characters were played by black actors....
    Yes as I said there have been a zillion different interpretations of Shakespeare - because it's fiction. Look how many eg female Lears there have been.

    But this play was (dramatised) biography. Of a real person. Who was white and Jewish and Bavarian.

    I am just interested in the reaction had the roles been different and a white bloke played Martin Luther King, say.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    I think Labour now have an opportunity to have their case heard in Scotland for the first time in almost a decade. Whether they make that case and how it lands is more uncertain. But at least they have some agency in the process now.
    It would be ironic if SLAB were left holding the GRR parcel when the music stopped:



    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-no-regrets-over-29216326.amp
    This shows you the state of Welsh politics -- Llafur and Plaid Cymru are thinking of adopting something similar.

    Plaid Cymru never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
  • Savanta

    🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention

    📈17pt Labour Lead

    🌹Lab 45 (-1)
    🌳Con 28 (+1)
    🔶LD 10 (+1)
    ➡️Reform 5 (=)
    🌍Green 4 (=)
    🎗️SNP 3 (=)
    ⬜️Other 4 (-1)

    2,175 UK adults, 10-12 Feb

    (chg from 3-5 Feb)

    https://twitter.com/savanta_uk/status/1626210647322300416?s=46&t=zl-mNeJEt9AjqIFHvmHxAQ
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,810
    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    One feature of Labour governments and oppositions in my lifetime (admittedly that’s one government plus many oppositions, or two governments counting the last years of Callaghan) has been that when they turn right, they tend to go authoritarian and a tad nationalist.

    There is a centralising authoritarian tradition in the Labour Party which is the main reason I remain a Lib Dem despite us being below 10% in the polls. I am crossing my fingers Starmer won’t feel the need to start going all hang-em and flog-em or exit ECHR in office.
    I agree, and it is why I left Labour 2 decades ago. I don't like central control.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 35,667

    I think Labour now have an opportunity to have their case heard in Scotland for the first time in almost a decade. Whether they make that case and how it lands is more uncertain. But at least they have some agency in the process now.
    It would be ironic if SLAB were left holding the GRR parcel when the music stopped:



    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-no-regrets-over-29216326.amp
    If the amendments that were suggested - fixes for the prisons and women's shelters issues (for example) - had gone through, then there wouldn't have been a problem.

    Particularly now that the obviousness of the issues has ben demonstrated, make the changes, and pass the modified bill.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    Fighting to keep the anti-semitic fire burning.
    Who's doing that then, Captain?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 1,315

    TOPPING said:

    Talking of anti-semites.

    Yesterday I went to see The Lehman Trilogy and one of the three Lehman brothers (sons of a Bavarian Jewish cattle merchant) was played (fantastically) by Michael Balogun. Black bloke.

    A black bloke was playing a 19th century Jewish merchant from Bavaria. And after 1.7 minutes you forget all about it and are entranced by his performance and the play (Nigel Lindsay best thing since Four Lions and that's saying something).

    I wonder however whether a white actor playing, say, Malcolm X, would have been equally as allowed and forgettable.

    IIRC Patrick Stewart did a version of Othello where he played Othello and all the other characters were played by black actors....
    That's bringing to mind Peter Greenaway's adaptation of The Tempest - "Prospero's Books". John Gielgud played Prospero and did the voice for all the other characters too. Visually striking too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRNLYaXP_h0
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    Fighting to keep the anti-semitic fire burning.
    Who's doing that then, Captain?
    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 108,337
    edited February 16

    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    A former boss said to colleagues that I was good at my job because I wasn’t squeamish about drowning kittens.

    (Not literally, metaphorically, I’d like to stress)
    How about market making for Elderly Relative Collateralised Obligations?
    That market already exists.

    It is just called something else.
  • Savanta

    🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention

    📈17pt Labour Lead

    🌹Lab 45 (-1)
    🌳Con 28 (+1)
    🔶LD 10 (+1)
    ➡️Reform 5 (=)
    🌍Green 4 (=)
    🎗️SNP 3 (=)
    ⬜️Other 4 (-1)

    2,175 UK adults, 10-12 Feb

    (chg from 3-5 Feb)

    https://twitter.com/savanta_uk/status/1626210647322300416?s=46&t=zl-mNeJEt9AjqIFHvmHxAQ

    Broken, sleazy Labour on the slide!
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    DavidL said:

    Unlikely that Corbyn would have been a candidate anyway but this is still a win for Starmer. The floating voters he needs will like the acknowledgment that Labour made a grievous error in putting that man up for PM. Twice.

    Given that Sir Keir himself, not just Labour, twice campaigned for Corbyn to become PM, it was a step he absolutely had to take.


  • Fighting to keep the anti-semitic fire burning.

    Who's doing that then, Captain?

    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 35,667

    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    A former boss said to colleagues that I was good at my job because I wasn’t squeamish about drowning kittens.

    (Not literally, metaphorically, I’d like to stress)
    How about market making for Elderly Relative Collateralised Obligations?
    That market already exists.

    It is just called something else.
    But are you trading in it? :-)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931
    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    One feature of Labour governments and oppositions in my lifetime (admittedly that’s one government plus many oppositions, or two governments counting the last years of Callaghan) has been that when they turn right, they tend to go authoritarian and a tad nationalist.

    There is a centralising authoritarian tradition in the Labour Party which is the main reason I remain a Lib Dem despite us being below 10% in the polls. I am crossing my fingers Starmer won’t feel the need to start going all hang-em and flog-em or exit ECHR in office.
    I hope not too - and I'm optimistic. Most of it imo is about having to deal with the residuals from that wretched Referendum. It fostered (as a political voting concept) this quite nationalistic 'Leave' identity which the Cons via Boris Johnson managed to trouser and with it a spectacular 'heel against the head' general election victory. Labour need to attract lots of these votes next time if they are to win - hence flags and lora norder and no dissing of Brexit etc. But once they've won, and got governing in not-Tory fashion, and more time passes since 23rd July 2016, and since 12th December 2019, I think the Leave identity will progressively break down as a 'thing' in domestic politics.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    edited February 16



    Fighting to keep the anti-semitic fire burning.

    Who's doing that then, Captain?

    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep. A little bit of anti-semitism shouldn't get in the way of reclaiming the power that is rightfully ours.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    edited February 16


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 110,251
    47% of Labour voters thinking this is the wrong decision is however a big worry for Starmer. If they stay home or go Green on polling day in marginal seats that could make the difference between a Labour majority and hung parliament.

    He already had a big poll lead over the Tories anyway, no further 2019 Tories are likely to switch even after this. There was a reason Blair kept Tony Benn and Corbyn in the party and Cameron didn't deselect IDS and Bill Cash given our FPTP system
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    I'd lose the flags, I think.
    Remember the Yes, Minister rule.

    The more radical the message, the more reassuring the background (leather bound books and Elgar) and vice versa.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    I'd lose the flags, I think.
    Remember the Yes, Minister rule.

    The more radical the message, the more reassuring the background (leather bound books and Elgar) and vice versa.
    Indeed. You should emphasise the thing that you're not (or that people think you're not).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 110,251
    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
    SKS is married to a Jew so obviously not anti Semitic
  • We absolutely do need a change of government, but there's far to many people thinking that Starmer is going to be some sort of Blair or Thatcher. We really need something almost radical, a government than can grab hold of the country and throw it in another direction, tackle the status quo. How is it right that Centrica can make 3 billion quid operating profits, but our energy bills are beyond belief? Mobile contracts going up 20%. The ULEZ spread making it harder for poorer people to enter cities.
    These things are what the average punter wants help with, and maybe a Thatcher or Blair would have had the force of personality to have a go. Starmer? He'll piss his pants at the first sign of big business getting the arse.
    The only reason to vote Labour at the next GE is because they ain't the tories. That's probably enough, but it'll be bland as buggery as a government.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 5,641
    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 37,240

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    I'd lose the flags, I think.
    Remember the Yes, Minister rule.

    The more radical the message, the more reassuring the background (leather bound books and Elgar) and vice versa.
    The odd thing about flags is that they can be reassuring and disturbing to different people depending on the flag. Of course some people pretend they can’t see them’, in finest Nelsonian manner.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931
    edited February 16

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    That's not quite what I mean. When you mess up in life it's important to both change and bust a gut to show that you've changed. But you don't spend the rest of your days like this. There comes a time to relax and simply be the new 'you' rather than constantly trying to prove it to people. It all gets a bit desperate otherwise. Exhausting too.

    So when will that time come for Labour? - I'd say a couple of years after the GE win. Middle of 2026 say. This is what I'm driving it. It's not about pulling some con-trick on the electorate. No thank you. That's what Boris Johnson did and it's something I'd hope we never see again.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 5,641
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
    SKS is married to a Jew so obviously not anti Semitic
    Doesn't necessarily follow. Plenty of misogynists have married women over the years.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
    SKS is married to a Jew so obviously not anti Semitic
    Thea von Harbou was married to a Jew
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited February 16
    Selebian said:

    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
    But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.

    They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.

    And your example illustrates this perfectly.

    It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 50,397
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
    SKS is married to a Jew so obviously not anti Semitic
    I'm not sure that follows: Farage was married to a German
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    I'd lose the flags, I think.
    Remember the Yes, Minister rule.

    The more radical the message, the more reassuring the background (leather bound books and Elgar) and vice versa.
    Yes ok. But perhaps we can have just the one in the corner.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    edited February 16
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
    SKS is married to a Jew so obviously not anti Semitic
    I'm not sure that follows: Farage was married to a German
    And countless evangelical US preachers have railed against homosexuality...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931
    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
    It's just as well I don't take you seriously. I could get offended.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085

    Selebian said:

    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
    But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.

    They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.

    And your example illustrates this perfectly.

    It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
    It was not sensible for SKS to kick out a radical left wing anti-semite?

    I don't get it. Why is that?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 5,641

    Selebian said:

    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
    But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.

    They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.

    And your example illustrates this perfectly.

    It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
    True. My second paragraph undermines the first (or at least goes off on an unrelated tangent).

    I'll try to be clearer. I think it's daft - and weakens a party - to kick out those whose political opinions are a bit removed from that of the present leadership. I don't think it weakens a party to kick out someone who was both in charge during a period in which the party was found to have serious antisemitic issues and (more importantly) still seems to be in denial about the identified problems. If Corbyn had apologised and recognised the errors made, then I'd have more sympathy with him. This is not a purge of lefties - many of Corbyn's allies on the lef tof Labour will still be candidates at the next GE, unless they choose to jump ship to a rival Corbynite party if one should emerge.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Selebian said:

    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
    But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.

    They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.

    And your example illustrates this perfectly.

    It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
    They walked out. What was he supposed to do, beg?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 38,085
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:


    "I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little on the 'look how much we've changed' front"

    That does smack of "Let's say/do anything it takes to get back into power, then we can do whatever the feck we want"

    That's just meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Yep, that does seem to be Sir Keir's strategy, egged on by the "it's too soon to announce policies" crowd.

    It only works if you get the big majority.
    Well @kinabalu's fervent wishes notwithstanding, I don't get the impression that SKS dislikes Jews, nor is as idealistic for a social non-market economy so from an economic perspective he is probably in a better place, politically, even if there is a bit of left wing/statist recidivism.
    It's just as well I don't take you seriously. I could get offended.
    Just as well.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 31,632
    edited February 16

    Nigelb said:

    Like Al Haig, I'm in charge this afternoon.

    That went well, too.
    I'm a fan of Al Haig's career, he misspoke once and that's what everybody remembers.
    Not the Private Eye cover? Surely everyone remembers that much more.

    https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-531

    (As I recvall, Mr Haig was getting visibly exhausted doing his shuttle diplomacy from one Middle Eastern capital to another.)
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 7,721
    LDLF said:

    Cookie said:

    If Labour can offload Jez - and Lloyd Russell Moyle, Richard Burgon, Nadia Whittome and the other nutjobs - then he does a lot to make his party more electable, and well done him.
    It does make you wonder though if he thinks Jez so far beyond the pale how he served in his shadow cabinet for several years.

    Indeed - I am considering voting Labour this time round on the firm assurance that Starmer was lying to us for four-and-a-half years. A strange platform, but I'm still considering it.

    It would, in my view, be a valid Tory (and indeed Lib Dem) attack line on Starmer: something along the lines of, 'why was he intensely relaxed to put in Number 10 a man he now considers so racist and beyond the pale as to be unworthy of the party whip? If, as we are constantly now assured, he had 'private doubts' in the 2015-19 period, why does he have unsufficient respect with the public to have been sincere with them in that same period?' I don't think it would work that well as an attack line, but it's worth a shot when you're as far behind as the other parties are.
    It is an absolutely reasonable attack line, not least because it is true. However all politics is relative. Most voters when all is said and done decide between the two parties (Lab v Tory or LD v Tory in almost every English seat, so it isn't hard to grasp) who can win the seat; so the issue in the hundreds of Lab v Tory seats isn't "Is Starmer perfectly consistent" but "How does he and Labour rank in comparison with the Tories."

    For me, first time since the 1970s, the answer is SKS and Labour. If he started compromising with anti semitic fellow travellers I would think again. And probably stay at home.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    TOPPING said:

    Selebian said:

    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
    But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.

    They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.

    And your example illustrates this perfectly.

    It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
    It was not sensible for SKS to kick out a radical left wing anti-semite?

    I don't get it. Why is that?
    Corbyn is not personally an antisemite (some of his supporters are).

    And now look what has happened.

    @Leon has spoken approvingly of SKS as a strong leader.

    Next step, ... , an approving statement from Donald Trump bidding "good riddance" to Corbyn and looking forward to working with SKS when they are both elected in 2024.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931

    I think Labour now have an opportunity to have their case heard in Scotland for the first time in almost a decade. Whether they make that case and how it lands is more uncertain. But at least they have some agency in the process now.
    It would be ironic if SLAB were left holding the GRR parcel when the music stopped:



    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-no-regrets-over-29216326.amp
    This shows you the state of Welsh politics -- Llafur and Plaid Cymru are thinking of adopting something similar.

    Plaid Cymru never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
    I didn't think the Senedd had the powers to pass gender recognition reforms?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 7,721

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    I'd lose the flags, I think.
    Remember the Yes, Minister rule.

    The more radical the message, the more reassuring the background (leather bound books and Elgar) and vice versa.
    The odd thing about flags is that they can be reassuring and disturbing to different people depending on the flag. Of course some people pretend they can’t see them’, in finest Nelsonian manner.
    Sorry to use a top 10 platitude but that is not a bug but a feature of flags.

    When I see the flag of North Korea flying from Buckingham Palace I shall not be reassured; but Momentum will not be disturbed.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,062
    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    Try reading that with a Birmingham accent.....

    It's difficult to separate his total uselessness from the principal of believing it shouldn't be in the gift of a party leader who stands for parliament. Down that road leads to a Boris Johnson.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,931

    TOPPING said:

    Selebian said:

    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
    But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.

    They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.

    And your example illustrates this perfectly.

    It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
    It was not sensible for SKS to kick out a radical left wing anti-semite?

    I don't get it. Why is that?
    Corbyn is not personally an antisemite (some of his supporters are).

    And now look what has happened.

    @Leon has spoken approvingly of SKS as a strong leader.

    Next step, ... , an approving statement from Donald Trump bidding "good riddance" to Corbyn and looking forward to working with SKS when they are both elected in 2024.
    Yes. I don't mind Donald Trump cosying up so much ... but Leon? That's a real concern.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    kinabalu said:

    I think Labour now have an opportunity to have their case heard in Scotland for the first time in almost a decade. Whether they make that case and how it lands is more uncertain. But at least they have some agency in the process now.
    It would be ironic if SLAB were left holding the GRR parcel when the music stopped:



    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-no-regrets-over-29216326.amp
    This shows you the state of Welsh politics -- Llafur and Plaid Cymru are thinking of adopting something similar.

    Plaid Cymru never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
    I didn't think the Senedd had the powers to pass gender recognition reforms?
    Ah, 10/10. And a special merit mark.

    And the @YBarddCwsc Medal for Cymric Knowledge.

    You are correct. The Welsh Govt are asking for the powers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 51,522
    Leon said:

    Starmer is a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted liar. There are many worse traits in a potential PM

    "If everybody always lies to you, the consequence isn't that you believe the lies but rather that nobody believes anything any longer."

    —Hannah Arendt
  • Blah. Blair tried to get Foot elected despite disagreeing with nuclear disarmament.

    He said Thatcher was wrong and then said he respected her.

    What politicians did in previous cabinets really is not particularly relevant to voters IMHO
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 16,545
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    And the 24% will be made up of some people who were never going to vote for a Starmer-led Labour anyway, some whom this might sway but who live in already very safe urban Labour seats, and most others who will vote Labour in any case.

    To me this decision WAS a no brainer. If Corbyn stood as a Labour candidate in the next election the Tories would have an absolute gift. It could derail the entire campaign. They would present SKS as an acceptable face hiding the reality of the militant anti-semitic Russia apologist hard left.

    Agree on the whole. But as a Labour member I do hope once we've won and bedded in we can ease back a little bit on the 'look how much we've changed' front. Eg maybe some of the flags can go.
    If keeping the flags made it easier to increase CGT and abolish inheritance tax loopholes what would you choose? Lose the flags or increase the taxes?
    I'd lose the flags, I think.
    Remember the Yes, Minister rule.

    The more radical the message, the more reassuring the background (leather bound books and Elgar) and vice versa.
    The odd thing about flags is that they can be reassuring and disturbing to different people depending on the flag. Of course some people pretend they can’t see them’, in finest Nelsonian manner.
    Sorry to use a top 10 platitude but that is not a bug but a feature of flags.

    When I see the flag of North Korea flying from Buckingham Palace I shall not be reassured; but Momentum will not be disturbed.

    I think you just about escape thanks to your rudimentary innovation of reversing the platitude. A marginal call, admittedly.

    Meanwhile, I note someone yesterday made a strong case for QTWTAIN being added to PB Cliche Bingo. I want to reassure that individual that it's being considered.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,697

    TOPPING said:

    Selebian said:

    Foxy said:

    I was in this poll and said that Corbyn should stand for Labour at the GE. It isn't that I support Corbynism, more that I don't like purges or the bloody court politics behind them. If Blair and Miliband had space for Corbyn on the backbenches, then so should Starmer.

    If everyone apart from the blandest of SPADS is kicked out from parliament then it ceases to be representative, and if that means that misogynists, homophobes or racists get elected then so be it.

    Misogynists, homophobes and racists should of course be able to stand (and get elected). It doesn't follow that a party leadership should knowingly permit them to stand for that party.

    To look at it from another angle - where my natural sympathies lie with the booted out - I thought that Johnson was a bit of a, well, johnson, for kicking the more pro-EU Conservatives out of the parliamentary party, but it was absolutely within his/the party's rights to do so.
    But that is the point. No-one is saying SKS does not have the right to do this.

    They are saying it is not sensible for the long term good of the party.

    And your example illustrates this perfectly.

    It was not sensible for Boris to kick those people out.
    It was not sensible for SKS to kick out a radical left wing anti-semite?

    I don't get it. Why is that?
    Corbyn is not personally an antisemite (some of his supporters are).

    And now look what has happened.

    @Leon has spoken approvingly of SKS as a strong leader.

    Next step, ... , an approving statement from Donald Trump bidding "good riddance" to Corbyn and looking forward to working with SKS when they are both elected in 2024.
    I don’t believe Corbyn is actually an anti-Semite, I believe his general political principles (and personal myopia and stupidity) make him blind to obvious and ugly anti-Semitism when it is all around him. The mural is a classic example

    That is enough to make him unfit to be a senior politician, but having just spent half the day in the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge what makes Corbyn unfit as a human being is his Marxism. Corbyn would absolutely have been one of the rigid, scholarly cadres that talked earnestly of Angkar as the peasant farmers smashed the heads of “bourgeois” babies
This discussion has been closed.