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
However. Most seats SKS needs to win back are English fights between Lab and Con. No-one else can win. No Labour voters who stop voting Labour because it isn't left/anti semitic enough are going to vote Tory. Not one. Each loss counts as One only.
Each Tory who switches to Labour (I am one) is Two votes - one less for the others, one more for SKS.
If he reckons, for example, that this move switches 1 million votes, or even 1.5 million, from Labour to Green, CP, SWP etc and 1 million Tories to Labour then the move is abundantly numerically justified. As well as being the right thing to do.
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:
You are correct. The Welsh Govt are asking for the powers.
Thank you! Will keep going and try for another one -
I'd say they are unlikely to be granted the powers because if they were to get them and pass a GRR it would only lead to Westminster blocking it with the Welsh equivalent of a S35 - being a S114.
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
Agreed. Any anyone who doesn't like that reality ought to be campaigning for PR. Impose a binary choice through FPTP, and such behaviour is not only inevitable, but necessary just to be an active politician.
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:
You are correct. The Welsh Govt are asking for the powers.
Thank you! Will keep going and try for another one -
I'd say they are unlikely to be granted the powers because if they were to get them and pass a GRR it would only lead to Westminster blocking it with the Welsh equivalent of a S35 - being a S114.
Have I overreached and gone show-offy?
Well, your position seems illogical. Surely as you say they won't be granted the powers, so there would be no need for a Westminster veto mechanism?
But logic has always been a stranger to Welsh politics.
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
I had a great day when taking a school group to Auschwitz.
It literally changed a teenager who had been a rampaging racist all his life into a campaigner for diversity and inclusion.
As in, as he went through every part of the tour you could see him realising his views were wrong, and why, until we stood at the end and he was saying how everybody should go there and see why racism was wrong.
In short, fuck the commies, they are as bad as the Nazis
I am not sure this is true. We only got to see what the Nazis did when they lost. I think if they had won the war and been in power for decades, as the Soviets were, the death toll would have been exponentially higher.
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:
You are correct. The Welsh Govt are asking for the powers.
Thank you! Will keep going and try for another one -
I'd say they are unlikely to be granted the powers because if they were to get them and pass a GRR it would only lead to Westminster blocking it with the Welsh equivalent of a S35 - being a S114.
Have I overreached and gone show-offy?
Well, your position seems illogical. Surely as you say they won't be granted the powers, so there would be no need for a Westminster veto mechanism?
But logic has always been a stranger to Welsh politics.
There is a certain logic in not granting powers, the exercise of which you know you're going to feel obliged to veto.
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:
You are correct. The Welsh Govt are asking for the powers.
Thank you! Will keep going and try for another one -
I'd say they are unlikely to be granted the powers because if they were to get them and pass a GRR it would only lead to Westminster blocking it with the Welsh equivalent of a S35 - being a S114.
Have I overreached and gone show-offy?
Ships bearing Ivory, apes, and peacocks are yours.
Apart from we don't have any in Wales.
So you're getting slate, Andrew 'RT' Davies and red kites instead.
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
I had a great day when taking a school group to Auschwitz.
It literally changed a teenager who had been a rampaging racist all his life into a campaigner for diversity and inclusion.
As in, as he went through every part of the tour you could see him realising his views were wrong, and why, until we stood at the end and he was saying how everybody should go there and see why racism was wrong.
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:
You are correct. The Welsh Govt are asking for the powers.
Thank you! Will keep going and try for another one -
I'd say they are unlikely to be granted the powers because if they were to get them and pass a GRR it would only lead to Westminster blocking it with the Welsh equivalent of a S35 - being a S114.
Have I overreached and gone show-offy?
Ships bearing Ivory, apes, and peacocks are yours.
Apart from we don't have any in Wales.
So you're getting slate, Andrew 'RT' Davies and red kites instead.
In short, fuck the commies, they are as bad as the Nazis
I am not sure this is true. We only got to see what the Nazis did when they lost. I think if they had won the war and been in power for decades, as the Soviets were, the death toll would have been exponentially higher.
The example of Mao and the Khmer Rouge suggests otherwise. The principle of Marxism is endless dialectical revolution, and an endless pursuit for purity, in the end they would have killed everyone, including themselves, as being tainted by bourgeoisness
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.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
So, just to be clear, doing what the voters want you to do is anti-democratic?
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
But, BJO, we have to get quite a few of them people who don't vote Labour to vote Labour, don't we? Otherwise it's permo-oppo.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
Party rules do not allow a free choice - the ability to select *anyone*. Its not open selection as Cameron brought to the Tories. Members are supposed to be able to select anyone who is on the candidates list. Jeremy isn't, so they can't.
I did enjoy your use of "fascist" here. On the stop the war rally in 2003 (the massive one in London) there was a SW guy shouting "this is a fascist police state". That we wouldn't be allowed to march if it was seemed to elude him.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
Corbyn is perfectly free to stand at the next election. Just not as a Labour candidate.
Or was it fascism to chuck Ramsey MacDonald out of the Labour party?
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
However. Most seats SKS needs to win back are English fights between Lab and Con. No-one else can win. No Labour voters who stop voting Labour because it isn't left/anti semitic enough are going to vote Tory. Not one. Each loss counts as One only.
Each Tory who switches to Labour (I am one) is Two votes - one less for the others, one more for SKS.
If he reckons, for example, that this move switches 1 million votes, or even 1.5 million, from Labour to Green, CP, SWP etc and 1 million Tories to Labour then the move is abundantly numerically justified. As well as being the right thing to do.
It isn't as simple as that though.
It's not just the numbers that count but also the intensity of the feeling regarding the issue.
If Labour and non-Labour voters feel as equally strong about the issue, then you'd probably be right.
However, it may be the case for Tories and LD voters that they see this a bit 'meh' and, good as it is, it's a bit old news. Corbyn these days is a relic of pre-Covid times, he has had little relevance in over three years. It doesn't really impact what they will do.
However, Labour voters - and those on the left in particular - may feel more strongly about this and either not vote Labour and / or vote for alternatives such as Green.
There is also a compound effect. As a general rule, Corbyn's backers are probably weighted towards more the activist / organisational end of the party. If Labour loses their drive in an election, that may compound their issues.
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:
You are correct. The Welsh Govt are asking for the powers.
Thank you! Will keep going and try for another one -
I'd say they are unlikely to be granted the powers because if they were to get them and pass a GRR it would only lead to Westminster blocking it with the Welsh equivalent of a S35 - being a S114.
Have I overreached and gone show-offy?
Well, your position seems illogical. Surely as you say they won't be granted the powers, so there would be no need for a Westminster veto mechanism?
But logic has always been a stranger to Welsh politics.
That IS my logic. If you intend to block the exercise of the power you likely won't grant it in the 1st place. Unless you want the rumble of course.
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.
Neither you nor I know whether he is or isn't an anti-semite but for my money he works walks and quacks an awfully lot like one.
As for SKS if he proves that the Labour Party isn't lead by an anti-semite and that anti-semites aren't tolerated in the party then I think that is a step forward.
And why the fixation on Corbyn. There are other left wing candidates who can fly the left wing flag in the Labour Party. Or is everyone who is left wing anti-semitic. Seems unlikely but perhaps that is the case.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
"an anti democratic fascist"
Glad to see there's no hyperbole from you @bigjohnowls
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945.
In short, fuck the commies, they are as bad as the Nazis
I am not sure this is true. We only got to see what the Nazis did when they lost. I think if they had won the war and been in power for decades, as the Soviets were, the death toll would have been exponentially higher.
Communists v Nazis - topics seem to be repeating very quickly these days. I think we need to slow down, turn the cycle to 'eco'.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
This conflicts with another strand of modern Left thinking - the Palestinian issue.
1) This means giving a special platform to supporters of Palestinians. 2) Because of the structure of Middle Eastern culture, Jews = Israel is common thinking in that part of the world. 3) This creates a fertile ground for anti-semitism. Some of which is truly, truly loopy. 4) White middle class lefties can't push back on such views, since that would mean a white middle class westerner telling an oppressed Middle Easterner that they are being racist. Because that is unpossible. 5) The unchallenged views spread, as such shit always does.
So you end up with Magic Grandpa supporting and defending someone the Home Office has bared from entering the country, on account of his enthusiasm for spreading the Blood Libel.
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
However. Most seats SKS needs to win back are English fights between Lab and Con. No-one else can win. No Labour voters who stop voting Labour because it isn't left/anti semitic enough are going to vote Tory. Not one. Each loss counts as One only.
Each Tory who switches to Labour (I am one) is Two votes - one less for the others, one more for SKS.
If he reckons, for example, that this move switches 1 million votes, or even 1.5 million, from Labour to Green, CP, SWP etc and 1 million Tories to Labour then the move is abundantly numerically justified. As well as being the right thing to do.
It isn't as simple as that though.
It's not just the numbers that count but also the intensity of the feeling regarding the issue.
If Labour and non-Labour voters feel as equally strong about the issue, then you'd probably be right.
However, it may be the case for Tories and LD voters that they see this a bit 'meh' and, good as it is, it's a bit old news. Corbyn these days is a relic of pre-Covid times, he has had little relevance in over three years. It doesn't really impact what they will do.
However, Labour voters - and those on the left in particular - may feel more strongly about this and either not vote Labour and / or vote for alternatives such as Green.
There is also a compound effect. As a general rule, Corbyn's backers are probably weighted towards more the activist / organisational end of the party. If Labour loses their drive in an election, that may compound their issues.
Good points all. We shall see. Of course it is possible, even likely, that the more Labour types campaign in their traditional rhetoric, the more Tory types will stop wanting to vote for them.
It seems to me that SKS thinks the less one sees of the typical Labour campaigning sort the better. It would only take a few Laura Pidcocks and Richard Burgons to sway a million votes of those 'Tory scum' who Laura Pidcock has 'never kissed' who voted Tory last time to stay Tory or stay at home.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
This conflicts with another strand of modern Left thinking - the Palestinian issue.
1) This means giving a special platform to supporters of Palestinians. 2) Because of the structure of Middle Eastern culture, Jews = Israel is common thinking in that part of the world. 3) This creates a fertile ground for anti-semitism. Some of which is truly, truly loopy. 4) White middle class lefties can't push back on such views, since that would mean a white middle class westerner telling an oppressed Middle Easterner that they are being racist. Because that is unpossible. 5) The unchallenged views spread, as such shit always does.
So you end up with Magic Grandpa supporting and defending someone the Home Office has bared from entering the country, on account of his enthusiasm for spreading the Blood Libel.
It is a strand which, whatever its merits, does not win elections in the UK.
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.
I saw The Lehmann Trilogy as a cinema live event some years ago and the three actors play several roles, including female roles. As you say, after a while you just accept what they are performing as.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
This conflicts with another strand of modern Left thinking - the Palestinian issue.
1) This means giving a special platform to supporters of Palestinians. 2) Because of the structure of Middle Eastern culture, Jews = Israel is common thinking in that part of the world. 3) This creates a fertile ground for anti-semitism. Some of which is truly, truly loopy. 4) White middle class lefties can't push back on such views, since that would mean a white middle class westerner telling an oppressed Middle Easterner that they are being racist. Because that is unpossible. 5) The unchallenged views spread, as such shit always does.
So you end up with Magic Grandpa supporting and defending someone the Home Office has bared from entering the country, on account of his enthusiasm for spreading the Blood Libel.
It is a strand which, whatever its merits, does not win elections in the UK.
Indeed. But I was trying to illustrate why it is that Corbyn and Co. keep such company.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can, of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
This conflicts with another strand of modern Left thinking - the Palestinian issue.
1) This means giving a special platform to supporters of Palestinians. 2) Because of the structure of Middle Eastern culture, Jews = Israel is common thinking in that part of the world. 3) This creates a fertile ground for anti-semitism. Some of which is truly, truly loopy. 4) White middle class lefties can't push back on such views, since that would mean a white middle class westerner telling an oppressed Middle Easterner that they are being racist. Because that is unpossible. 5) The unchallenged views spread, as such shit always does.
So you end up with Magic Grandpa supporting and defending someone the Home Office has bared from entering the country, on account of his enthusiasm for spreading the Blood Libel.
It is a strand which, whatever its merits, does not win elections in the UK.
Indeed. But I was trying to illustrate why it is that Corbyn and Co. keep such company.
Indeed, isn't it intrinsic to the Corbynite worldview - identifiable groups can be classified as either oppressors or oppressed, and Jews are oppressors?
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can. of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Pretty much yes
Anyone who doesnt believe members of the CLP should choose the Candidate aint a Democrat.
Anyone who thinks a leader can choose who is and who isn't Labour overriding members wishes, is a fascist
I can only speak for myself, but I voted Labour from 1970 to 1997, I voted LD up to 2019, and then voted Conseravtive to get Brexit done. Will I vote Labour next time? Probably.
Would I vote Labour if Corbyn was leader? No way. And I always vote at GEs.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
This conflicts with another strand of modern Left thinking - the Palestinian issue.
1) This means giving a special platform to supporters of Palestinians. 2) Because of the structure of Middle Eastern culture, Jews = Israel is common thinking in that part of the world. 3) This creates a fertile ground for anti-semitism. Some of which is truly, truly loopy. 4) White middle class lefties can't push back on such views, since that would mean a white middle class westerner telling an oppressed Middle Easterner that they are being racist. Because that is unpossible. 5) The unchallenged views spread, as such shit always does.
So you end up with Magic Grandpa supporting and defending someone the Home Office has bared from entering the country, on account of his enthusiasm for spreading the Blood Libel.
It is a strand which, whatever its merits, does not win elections in the UK.
Indeed. But I was trying to illustrate why it is that Corbyn and Co. keep such company.
Indeed, isn't it intrinsic to the Corbynite worldview - identifiable groups can be classified as either oppressors or oppressed, and Jews are oppressors?
Partly.
The more important part in the anti-semitism thing is the nostrum that oppressed groups can't be oppressors. So membership of an oppressed group means you can't be racist.
To challenge a member of such a group with an accusation of racism is... not to be done. You might as well start voting Tory, at that point.
On Topic Starmer speaks for Tories and LDs. Not for Lab voters but I have told PB that is the case many times before.
Repeating a fiction fails to make it any truer
And even on BJO's own terms it is not anti-democratic. The local party is quite entitled to disaffiliate from the central administration and run their own candidate (as may well happen) and then the voters will decide.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can, of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Yup - you should just acknowledge who you are and hang this on the wall....
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.
The far right are on constant look out for coat tails to grasp. If they get them all mucky so much the better.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
This conflicts with another strand of modern Left thinking - the Palestinian issue.
1) This means giving a special platform to supporters of Palestinians. 2) Because of the structure of Middle Eastern culture, Jews = Israel is common thinking in that part of the world. 3) This creates a fertile ground for anti-semitism. Some of which is truly, truly loopy. 4) White middle class lefties can't push back on such views, since that would mean a white middle class westerner telling an oppressed Middle Easterner that they are being racist. Because that is unpossible. 5) The unchallenged views spread, as such shit always does.
So you end up with Magic Grandpa supporting and defending someone the Home Office has bared from entering the country, on account of his enthusiasm for spreading the Blood Libel.
It is a strand which, whatever its merits, does not win elections in the UK.
Indeed. But I was trying to illustrate why it is that Corbyn and Co. keep such company.
Indeed, isn't it intrinsic to the Corbynite worldview - identifiable groups can be classified as either oppressors or oppressed, and Jews are oppressors?
The historical connection between the Labour Party and Jews came when the Jews were weak (immediately post-war) and needed saving. cf any minority and the Labour Party. Also, Jews = Israel = Jews to them.
The worst crime someone poor and downtrodden can commit in Labour Party eyes is to stop being poor and downtrodden and instead become successful as we have seen countless times with people who are branded "class traitors". It means they don't need saving any more. In the same way once the Jews = Israel stopped being downtrodden and started flexing their muscles then they became loathed as oppressors.
That Israel has done a bit of oppressing itself these past few decades has compounded the betrayal.
On Topic Starmer speaks for Tories and LDs. Not for Lab voters but I have told PB that is the case many times before.
Repeating a fiction fails to make it any truer
Ir worked with the Anti Semitism lie that was used as a factional weapon (according to the independent report the anti Democratic Fascist commissioned and then ignored)
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can, of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Comments on here (and not all from the usual suspects) rather support this judgement.
Now, has he said that because he knows there's not a snowflake's chance in hell Ukraine will invade Belarus, and he doesn't want war, or because he's about to join the war but needs cover for a false flag?
The 15-minute cities article struck a chord. Why are the pavements so shocking in our towns and cities?
As a wheelchair user I find myself increasingly deciding to wheel along roads in town centres - nice smooth tarmac compared to uneven, unstable, narrow, highly-cambered pavements.
As an occasional runner but who often has to run in the dark, albeit with a light, I find it safer generally to run on the tarmac road so I don't trip on an unexpected bumps in the pavement. I hop back onto the pavement if a car comes along. I imagine that is very difficult or impossible for you so you are very brave!
Hah yes, but I don't use the road in the dark tbf. And I am only talking about shopping high streets, which should be pedestrianised imo, resistance to which often bizarrely comes from shopkeepers.
Not that bizarre. Make it more difficult for people to put stuff in their cars and they go to out of town centres instead.
One of the other things, separate but linked to that, which is killing town centres is high parking charges.
Blimey, even I can carry a bag of shopping a few hundred yards to a car.
(Agree about car-parking charges, though. Also the sheer difficulty of paying for parking in, for example, my local town Shaftesbury last time I tried: coin-meter full, card-reader broken, pay-by-app no signal to down load yet another new parking app.)
There are some parking machines that you select the tariff and then just tap your card - easy. The RUH in Bath has this, and its great (even if expensive).
And then there are the rest... Wiltshire has a app based one, which to use I have to constantly 2FA my card. i could fully sign up I suppose, but when I can see its possible to tap and go (see above) I don't see why I should.
I refuse to use car parks that won't accept cash, though if they are rip-off prices I will tolerate a card reader. If it's App only then they can forget it (why do I need my phone just to nip to the shops, or the country park?) so the businesses of Chelmsford Borough Council and the London Borough of Redbridge live without my custom altogether.
I'm the opposite. I never carry cash and therefore refuse to use the ludicrous outdated 'cash-only' carparks that you still encounter in the darkest corners of the provinces. I mean, who in their right mind carries notes, never mind coinage, around in this day and age? Cash is pointless – wasteful, environmentally unjustifiable, inconvenient, outdated, slow, expensive. What is the point of it? There is none.
I don't like the zealotry of people who don't use cash, the impatient way they regard people who do use it as a nuisance.
Also I think it's good to have more than one way of doing something. The more the better: cash, cards, cheques, bank transfers, digital, etc. If something goes wrong with one of the methods, you've got the others to fall back on.
Now, has he said that because he knows there's not a snowflake's chance in hell Ukraine will invade Belarus, and he doesn't want war, or because he's about to join the war but needs cover for a false flag?
He's Putin's puppet. Has to say things like that every now and again to make The Master happy.
He is trying to walk a fine line between being Horthy, Franco or Mussolini.
The 15-minute cities article struck a chord. Why are the pavements so shocking in our towns and cities?
As a wheelchair user I find myself increasingly deciding to wheel along roads in town centres - nice smooth tarmac compared to uneven, unstable, narrow, highly-cambered pavements.
As an occasional runner but who often has to run in the dark, albeit with a light, I find it safer generally to run on the tarmac road so I don't trip on an unexpected bumps in the pavement. I hop back onto the pavement if a car comes along. I imagine that is very difficult or impossible for you so you are very brave!
Hah yes, but I don't use the road in the dark tbf. And I am only talking about shopping high streets, which should be pedestrianised imo, resistance to which often bizarrely comes from shopkeepers.
Not that bizarre. Make it more difficult for people to put stuff in their cars and they go to out of town centres instead.
One of the other things, separate but linked to that, which is killing town centres is high parking charges.
Blimey, even I can carry a bag of shopping a few hundred yards to a car.
(Agree about car-parking charges, though. Also the sheer difficulty of paying for parking in, for example, my local town Shaftesbury last time I tried: coin-meter full, card-reader broken, pay-by-app no signal to down load yet another new parking app.)
There are some parking machines that you select the tariff and then just tap your card - easy. The RUH in Bath has this, and its great (even if expensive).
And then there are the rest... Wiltshire has a app based one, which to use I have to constantly 2FA my card. i could fully sign up I suppose, but when I can see its possible to tap and go (see above) I don't see why I should.
I refuse to use car parks that won't accept cash, though if they are rip-off prices I will tolerate a card reader. If it's App only then they can forget it (why do I need my phone just to nip to the shops, or the country park?) so the businesses of Chelmsford Borough Council and the London Borough of Redbridge live without my custom altogether.
I'm the opposite. I never carry cash and therefore refuse to use the ludicrous outdated 'cash-only' carparks that you still encounter in the darkest corners of the provinces. I mean, who in their right mind carries notes, never mind coinage, around in this day and age? Cash is pointless – wasteful, environmentally unjustifiable, inconvenient, outdated, slow, expensive. What is the point of it? There is none.
I don't like the zealotry of people who don't use cash, the way they regard people who do use it as a nuisance.
Also I think it's good to have more than one way of doing something. The more the better: cash, cards, cheques, bank transfers, digital, etc.
I try to avoid both "cash only" and "no cash" places. Let people have the choice.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can. of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Pretty much yes
Anyone who doesnt believe members of the CLP should choose the Candidate aint a Democrat.
Anyone who thinks a leader can choose who is and who isn't Labour overriding members wishes, is a fascist
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can. of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Pretty much yes
Anyone who doesnt believe members of the CLP should choose the Candidate aint a Democrat.
Anyone who thinks a leader can choose who is and who isn't Labour overriding members wishes, is a fascist
That isn't fascism. It is rather mild authoritarianism. By the elected leader of the party, using the rules laid down and voted on at the various party conferences.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
As an ex-leader, Corbyn remains a man happy to give others the benefit of his vast knowledge. In the Ukranian conflict, he will speak loudly about the NATO war-mongering when asked. A sure-vote winner. He can't stop himself.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945.
Godwin in one. A magnificent effort.
Just trying to keep up the standards. See yesterday's discussion passim on top cliches, of which of course 'passim' was one. Another was.......
I’m a socialist @bigjohnowls, just not a left wing crazy
He's not left wing, whatever he claims. It'll make his day if Labour doesn't win the next GE, just because he'll delight in Starmer's discomfort. The PB Tories would do likewise, he has a great deal in common with them.
As an ex-leader, Corbyn remains a man happy to give others the benefit of his vast knowledge. In the Ukranian conflict, he will speak loudly about the NATO war-mongering when asked. A sure-vote winner. He can't stop himself.
You misrepresent his view on this of course (no change there)
There has been no stronger critic of Putin than Corbyn as the Tories and Centrists were cosying up to dirty Russian money.
So the Home Office didn’t even understand the EU UK agreement and were embarking on a vindictive mean spirited policy that could have left many EU nationals with the threat of deportation . The High Court thankfully blocked this and the government who originally suggested they would appeal this decision have now said they accept the judgement .
The Home Office remains not fit for purpose although generally there’s always one constant which is showing zero regard for the lives it can impact .
And of course with the stain on humanity Braverman now in charge I’m sure more ways will be found to be cruel and vindictive to EU nationals .
The 15-minute cities article struck a chord. Why are the pavements so shocking in our towns and cities?
As a wheelchair user I find myself increasingly deciding to wheel along roads in town centres - nice smooth tarmac compared to uneven, unstable, narrow, highly-cambered pavements.
As an occasional runner but who often has to run in the dark, albeit with a light, I find it safer generally to run on the tarmac road so I don't trip on an unexpected bumps in the pavement. I hop back onto the pavement if a car comes along. I imagine that is very difficult or impossible for you so you are very brave!
Hah yes, but I don't use the road in the dark tbf. And I am only talking about shopping high streets, which should be pedestrianised imo, resistance to which often bizarrely comes from shopkeepers.
Not that bizarre. Make it more difficult for people to put stuff in their cars and they go to out of town centres instead.
One of the other things, separate but linked to that, which is killing town centres is high parking charges.
Blimey, even I can carry a bag of shopping a few hundred yards to a car.
(Agree about car-parking charges, though. Also the sheer difficulty of paying for parking in, for example, my local town Shaftesbury last time I tried: coin-meter full, card-reader broken, pay-by-app no signal to down load yet another new parking app.)
There are some parking machines that you select the tariff and then just tap your card - easy. The RUH in Bath has this, and its great (even if expensive).
And then there are the rest... Wiltshire has a app based one, which to use I have to constantly 2FA my card. i could fully sign up I suppose, but when I can see its possible to tap and go (see above) I don't see why I should.
I refuse to use car parks that won't accept cash, though if they are rip-off prices I will tolerate a card reader. If it's App only then they can forget it (why do I need my phone just to nip to the shops, or the country park?) so the businesses of Chelmsford Borough Council and the London Borough of Redbridge live without my custom altogether.
I'm the opposite. I never carry cash and therefore refuse to use the ludicrous outdated 'cash-only' carparks that you still encounter in the darkest corners of the provinces. I mean, who in their right mind carries notes, never mind coinage, around in this day and age? Cash is pointless – wasteful, environmentally unjustifiable, inconvenient, outdated, slow, expensive. What is the point of it? There is none.
I don't like the zealotry of people who don't use cash, the impatient way they regard people who do use it as a nuisance.
Also I think it's good to have more than one way of doing something. The more the better: cash, cards, cheques, bank transfers, digital, etc. If something goes wrong with one of the methods, you've got the others to fall back on.
It's like the old advice to have a return ticket when going to the races so that you don't have to raffle your trousers to get home. (P G Wodehouse passim.)
Always have enough cash to get yourself home. It is the most fail safe system.
I’m a socialist @bigjohnowls, just not a left wing crazy
He's not left wing, whatever he claims. It'll make his day if Labour doesn't win the next GE, just because he'll delight in Starmer's discomfort. The PB Tories would do likewise, he has a great deal in common with them.
That's not fair. Nothing delights a good left winger more than to see another left-winger discomfited. As Monty Python showed.
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.
The far right are on constant look out for coat tails to grasp. If they get them all mucky so much the better.
Indeed. Although I have this tiny hint of a suspicion that our Leon was trolling there and come polling day will not be favouring the Labour Party - even one knee deep in flags - with his cross.
We will do anything for a landslide majority ... but we won't do that.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can. of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Pretty much yes
Anyone who doesnt believe members of the CLP should choose the Candidate aint a Democrat.
Anyone who thinks a leader can choose who is and who isn't Labour overriding members wishes, is a fascist
That isn't fascism. It is rather mild authoritarianism. By the elected leader of the party, using the rules laid down and voted on at the various party conferences.
No he has ripped up the rule book and done the exact opposite of what he pledged to get the leadership
No more NEC imposition of Candidates local members must decide - SKS 2020 Leadership election
Now, has he said that because he knows there's not a snowflake's chance in hell Ukraine will invade Belarus, and he doesn't want war, or because he's about to join the war but needs cover for a false flag?
He's Putin's puppet. Has to say things like that every now and again to make The Master happy.
He is trying to walk a fine line between being Horthy, Franco or Mussolini.
Lukashenko Putin’s gimp .
Perhaps we should ease the sanctions for lube so the spineless traitor can take it more easily .
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can. of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Pretty much yes
Anyone who doesnt believe members of the CLP should choose the Candidate aint a Democrat.
Anyone who thinks a leader can choose who is and who isn't Labour overriding members wishes, is a fascist
That isn't fascism. It is rather mild authoritarianism. By the elected leader of the party, using the rules laid down and voted on at the various party conferences.
No he has ripped up the rule book and done the exact opposite of what he pledged to get the leadership
No more NEC imposition of Candidates local members must decide - SKS 2020 Leadership election
There is a distinction between imposing candidates and saying people are unsuitable to be candidates.
I mean, would you expect Starmer to allow, say, Farage or indeed Chris Williamson to be selected and go forward as Labour candidates?
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945.
Godwin in one. A magnificent effort.
Just trying to keep up the standards. See yesterday's discussion passim on top cliches, of which of course 'passim' was one. Another was.......
I just admire the directness of your 'hole-in-one'.
You got straight from an elderly allotment who makes excellent jam to "the holocaust" in two sentences.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
So would I, but our system makes that very difficult.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
I vote Labour, am a member, and am a rare thing - a socialist. I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you? Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible. Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are. So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can. of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Pretty much yes
Anyone who doesnt believe members of the CLP should choose the Candidate aint a Democrat.
Anyone who thinks a leader can choose who is and who isn't Labour overriding members wishes, is a fascist
Glorious nonsense.
SKS ARGUED FOR CLPs to select all Candidates DURING THE LEADERSHIP ELECTION
Now, has he said that because he knows there's not a snowflake's chance in hell Ukraine will invade Belarus, and he doesn't want war, or because he's about to join the war but needs cover for a false flag?
Go on Luka, do it. Because that way lies popular revolution, a free Belarus, and an even more overstretched Russia flailing around on its Western flank. It would be neatly like the Italians chucking out Mussolini during the war and turning their guns around, because Luka is Benito to Putin's Adolf.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
It wasn't just on Iraq though, was it? It was time and time and time again, on just about every issue of disagreement with Blair and Brown. He has defied the Labour whip more times than any Labour MP in history. That's what marks him out from an MP who rebels very occasionally, as most do. Basically he thinks the whipping system doesn't apply to him at all.
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
Just like the members had a say over Webbe and O’Mara. Oh wait
Both were appointed without a proper selection process by Ian Mc'Nicholl Jezza argued for more scrutiny
Next
Claudia Webbe, who was a personal friend of Jeremy Corbyn, who testified to her 'good character and positive contribution' to try to get her off a charge of criminal harassment, and was a longstanding ally of his in Islington and on the NEC, and whose appointment as candidate was derided in Leicester as being based on her closeness to him?
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
Thing is, the Labour Party need "disaffected One Nation Tories" to win the election.
So that means your desire to disaffect them from any version of the Labour Party is somewhat problematical if you want a Labour Party win.
Or do you think that no one has ever changed parties ever before.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
You'd rather have a Tory government again than vote Labour. Uh-huh, figures.
If there's no difference between the two, other than Labour under Starmer are more authoritarian and callous towards their own members, then yes.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
It wasn't just on Iraq though, was it? It was time and time and time again, on just about every issue of disagreement with Blair and Brown. He has defied the Labour whip more times than any Labour MP in history. That's what marks him out from an MP who rebels very occasionally, as most do. Basically he thinks the whipping system doesn't apply to him at all.
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
"I can of course see why you would want that to happen."
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.
The far right are on constant look out for coat tails to grasp. If they get them all mucky so much the better.
Indeed. Although I have this tiny hint of a suspicion that our Leon was trolling there and come polling day will not be favouring the Labour Party - even one knee deep in flags - with his cross.
We will do anything for a landslide majority ... but we won't do that.
Probably not Leon but perhaps one of his creations.
Time for a mild progressive with unconvincing back story to decide that they should give Starmer and Labour a chance, if they’re north of the border even better.
What a ridiculously misguided headline. What is this website, Pravda? Exceptionally misjudged the very morning after a personal friend sent footage of an avowedly left-wing crowd chanting "F*** Keir Starmer"! I don't see how it's possible for anyone who sang "Oh Jeremy, Jeremy" a few years ago to even consider voting for the party that's treated him so appallingly. I'm Jewish, for what it's worth, and the most antisemitic attitudes I've encountered come from the Starmerites, cynically manipulating the fears of Jewish people to blacklist their internal opponents. It's absolutely horrific. The only people who seem to want Starmer are disaffected One Nation Tories who think "he's one of us, deep down", those elitist Tories who'd rather lose "honourably" than ever give their constituents the kind of working class conservatism they actually want!
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
Corbyn called for a ceasefire and for the West to stop arming Ukraine.
True, he also called for Russia to withdraw, but he hasn't stopped demanding the latter even when it was clear the Russians wouldn't be stopped except by force.
On topic people who don't vote Labour don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS agrees with them and in not allowing the Members in Islington N a free choice is an anti democratic fascist
All depends how you put it. What about:
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
I agree. But Starmer's position stems from a lot more than just Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
Corbyn's failure to accept the report condemning Labour's antisemitism under his leadership. Not true he accepted it in full
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
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.
The far right are on constant look out for coat tails to grasp. If they get them all mucky so much the better.
Indeed. Although I have this tiny hint of a suspicion that our Leon was trolling there and come polling day will not be favouring the Labour Party - even one knee deep in flags - with his cross.
We will do anything for a landslide majority ... but we won't do that.
Probably not Leon but perhaps one of his creations.
Time for a mild progressive with unconvincing back story to decide that they should give Starmer and Labour a chance, if they’re north of the border even better.
Ah that one. Yes, I remember your puzzle - which I did in fact manage to solve.
But are you sure? I don't really pick it up, I must say. Absence of 'tells' there for me.
Starmer will never speak for me. Forcing candidates on constituencies is as bad as not allowing them. Unless he is banished from the Labour Party permanently, it is down to the Constituency party to decide.
Comments
Each Tory who switches to Labour (I am one) is Two votes - one less for the others, one more for SKS.
If he reckons, for example, that this move switches 1 million votes, or even 1.5 million, from Labour to Green, CP, SWP etc and 1 million Tories to Labour then the move is abundantly numerically justified. As well as being the right thing to do.
I'd say they are unlikely to be granted the powers because if they were to get them and pass a GRR it would only lead to Westminster blocking it with the Welsh equivalent of a S35 - being a S114.
Have I overreached and gone show-offy?
Any anyone who doesn't like that reality ought to be campaigning for PR. Impose a binary choice through FPTP, and such behaviour is not only inevitable, but necessary just to be an active politician.
But logic has always been a stranger to Welsh politics.
Apart from we don't have any in Wales.
So you're getting slate, Andrew 'RT' Davies and red kites instead.
See also Blair.
See also Johnson in 2019 (Brexit and levelling up)
Football: two bets, both Bundesliga, at which I'm normally appalling.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/02/ligue-1-bundesliga-serie-16-february.html
I did enjoy your use of "fascist" here. On the stop the war rally in 2003 (the massive one in London) there was a SW guy shouting "this is a fascist police state". That we wouldn't be allowed to march if it was seemed to elude him.
Or was it fascism to chuck Ramsey MacDonald out of the Labour party?
It's not just the numbers that count but also the intensity of the feeling regarding the issue.
If Labour and non-Labour voters feel as equally strong about the issue, then you'd probably be right.
However, it may be the case for Tories and LD voters that they see this a bit 'meh' and, good as it is, it's a bit old news. Corbyn these days is a relic of pre-Covid times, he has had little relevance in over three years. It doesn't really impact what they will do.
However, Labour voters - and those on the left in particular - may feel more strongly about this and either not vote Labour and / or vote for alternatives such as Green.
There is also a compound effect. As a general rule, Corbyn's backers are probably weighted towards more the activist / organisational end of the party. If Labour loses their drive in an election, that may compound their issues.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/
As for SKS if he proves that the Labour Party isn't lead by an anti-semite and that anti-semites aren't tolerated in the party then I think that is a step forward.
And why the fixation on Corbyn. There are other left wing candidates who can fly the left wing flag in the Labour Party. Or is everyone who is left wing anti-semitic. Seems unlikely but perhaps that is the case.
Glad to see there's no hyperbole from you @bigjohnowls
Most people don't want Corbyn to stand as Labour. SKS knows that to win elections you have to have regard to the views of those who voted for you last time and the millions whose votes you wish to attract from other parties. All parties have systems of moderation and appraisal when it comes to who is a suitable candidate to represent the party, including Labour, which is a moderate social democratic party strongly resistant to fascism including the fascism of the holocaust which haunts Europe from the last century and for which cause so many Labour members gave their lives 1939-1945 and for which reason anti semitism has a particularly despised place in its thinking.
1) This means giving a special platform to supporters of Palestinians.
2) Because of the structure of Middle Eastern culture, Jews = Israel is common thinking in that part of the world.
3) This creates a fertile ground for anti-semitism. Some of which is truly, truly loopy.
4) White middle class lefties can't push back on such views, since that would mean a white middle class westerner telling an oppressed Middle Easterner that they are being racist. Because that is unpossible.
5) The unchallenged views spread, as such shit always does.
So you end up with Magic Grandpa supporting and defending someone the Home Office has bared from entering the country, on account of his enthusiasm for spreading the Blood Libel.
It seems to me that SKS thinks the less one sees of the typical Labour campaigning sort the better. It would only take a few Laura Pidcocks and Richard Burgons to sway a million votes of those 'Tory scum' who Laura Pidcock has 'never kissed' who voted Tory last time to stay Tory or stay at home.
Corbyn has by his actions made it very clear that he will defy the Labour whip on all manner of votes as he pleases should he ever again get re-elected as a Labour MP. His voting record when an MP, until he became leader, was absolutely lamentable in terms of failure to follow the Labour whip. More recently he has shown absolutely no sign of changing. Take his lamentable stance of appeasement at the start of the Ukraine war for example, leading from the front Putin's useful idiots in the Stop the War coalition, reprising his role at the time of the Salisbury poisonings. A dozen or so of the other usual suspects were rightly threatened by Starmer with immediate loss of the whip should they not withdraw their backing for that stance, and promptly backed down. Corbyn did not, having already lost the whip. He knew what the consequences of his continued defiance would be, it is not as though he wasn't warned and he has brought this on himself. On any tight parliamentary vote, he will never be someone who can be relied upon by a Labour government to vote as the whips require. It is absolutely right that he should continue to have the whip withdrawn and as a consequence be ineligible for selection as a Labour MP.
I want Labour to win power, and am happy to make some compromises to do so. Are you?
Ideally, Corbyn would be left alone as a backbench MP as he was for so long - but his stint as leader has made that impossible.
Starmer's judgement is that leaving Corbyn to stand runs the risk of derailing a GE campaign as our opponents, rightly or wrongly, make this a key attack point. He's probably right, and that having Corbyn run for Labour would be a net vote loser. Sad, but there you are.
So to me, winning the election is more important than Corbyn's future, though I wish him well. He can, of course, stand for the Islington Allotment Holders' Party if he so wishes.
I guess all that make me an anti-democratic fascist.
Anyone who doesnt believe members of the CLP should choose the Candidate aint a Democrat.
Anyone who thinks a leader can choose who is and who isn't Labour overriding members wishes, is a fascist
Would I vote Labour if Corbyn was leader? No way. And I always vote at GEs.
The more important part in the anti-semitism thing is the nostrum that oppressed groups can't be oppressors. So membership of an oppressed group means you can't be racist.
To challenge a member of such a group with an accusation of racism is... not to be done. You might as well start voting Tory, at that point.
The worst crime someone poor and downtrodden can commit in Labour Party eyes is to stop being poor and downtrodden and instead become successful as we have seen countless times with people who are branded "class traitors". It means they don't need saving any more. In the same way once the Jews = Israel stopped being downtrodden and started flexing their muscles then they became loathed as oppressors.
That Israel has done a bit of oppressing itself these past few decades has compounded the betrayal.
Lukashenko warns Belarus will join Russia in war if attacked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64664560
Classic non-denial denial.
Now, has he said that because he knows there's not a snowflake's chance in hell Ukraine will invade Belarus, and he doesn't want war, or because he's about to join the war but needs cover for a false flag?
Also I think it's good to have more than one way of doing something. The more the better: cash, cards, cheques, bank transfers, digital, etc. If something goes wrong with one of the methods, you've got the others to fall back on.
He is trying to walk a fine line between being Horthy, Franco or Mussolini.
That is how we ended up with the Labour Party voting for war in Iraq.
I'd rather have independent minded MPs voting according to their conscience.
Just like the members had a say over Webbe and O’Mara. Oh wait
As you have spent you time since April 2020 blowing smoke up Johnson's**** your opinion on this matter doesn't count.
Even Tories likes Johnson less
There has been no stronger critic of Putin than Corbyn as the Tories and Centrists were cosying up to dirty Russian money.
The Home Office remains not fit for purpose although generally there’s always one constant which is showing zero regard for the lives it can impact .
And of course with the stain on humanity Braverman now in charge I’m sure more ways will be found to be cruel and vindictive to EU nationals .
Always have enough cash to get yourself home. It is the most fail safe system.
We will do anything for a landslide majority ... but we won't do that.
No more NEC imposition of Candidates local members must decide - SKS 2020 Leadership election
Perhaps we should ease the sanctions for lube so the spineless traitor can take it more easily .
I mean, would you expect Starmer to allow, say, Farage or indeed Chris Williamson to be selected and go forward as Labour candidates?
You got straight from an elderly allotment who makes excellent jam to "the holocaust" in two sentences.
You don't get full marks (unlike @kinabalu )
I point out, reluctantly of course, that you have violated the EDI style guide with you loose use of lower-case letters
https://www.diversitystyleguide.com/glossary/holocaust/
But don't mention NATO. All cats may be black in the dark and Mr Corbyn chooses the lighting.
Next
Your comment might be appropriate 300 years ago or so, to a time when the party system wasn't really in place. But today it is, and a Labour-led government with only a small working majority would fail if there were a small rump of MPs which time and again failed to obey the whip on key votes. I can of course see why you would want that to happen.
That Claudia Webbe?
He happened to be right on Iraq but it was by luck
So that means your desire to disaffect them from any version of the Labour Party is somewhat problematical if you want a Labour Party win.
Or do you think that no one has ever changed parties ever before.
Do elucidate.
Time for a mild progressive with unconvincing back story to decide that they should give Starmer and Labour a chance, if they’re north of the border even better.
Ukraine War - Untrue he called for Russia to withdraw and has been Putins strongest critic for years
Lamentable voting record - Rubbish, anti Iraq anti austerity anti PFI He has been spot on
You are just parroting lies about Corbyn from his right wing opponents inside and outside Labour
If 'Team Jorge' has interfered in 33 democratic election is it not in effect a subversive organisation that should be banned?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/revealed-disinformation-team-jorge-claim-meddling-elections-tal-hanan
Actually, most of the country was right about Iraq, including a large number of Labour MPs who did disobey the whip.
And it wasn't by luck. It was obvious that Iraq would be a disaster.
I am in favour of MPs who disobey the whip.
I am in favour of trouble-makers. I am in favour of mischief-makers. That is what an MP should be.
Bye Bye and dont forget
https://twitter.com/MarlonKameka/status/1625953433185357827
True, he also called for Russia to withdraw, but he hasn't stopped demanding the latter even when it was clear the Russians wouldn't be stopped except by force.
"I would not be sending materiel [to Ukraine] which would allow the invasion of Russia."
But are you sure? I don't really pick it up, I must say. Absence of 'tells' there for me.