The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[sheffbag 224]

2 hours ago, banjodeano said:

Eliminating Blairites?  If they are deselected then thats democracy in action im afraid..besides they are getting what they did to the left in years gone by, they actively targeted the socialists in the party to get them out

Which in turn enabled Labour to win general elections, something that the socialists haven't manged for 45 years

[banjodeano 28]

2 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Which in turn enabled Labour to win general elections, something that the socialists haven't manged for 45 years

But what is actually the point in winning if you don't improve the lot of the working class, yeah minimum wage was a positive but I am struggling with much else..always thought it looked bad when he cosied up to Murdock 

[sheffbag 224]

8 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

But what is actually the point in winning if you don't improve the lot of the working class, yeah minimum wage was a positive but I am struggling with much else..always thought it looked bad when he cosied up to Murdock 

But isnt the point of taking part in a competition (and thats what a GE is when it comes down to it) to win?

 

Because you can do more if you are the actual government then if you are in opposition.?

 

Are you suggesting that Labour would rather have the "moral high socailist ground" but not be in power than actually be the government and try to change things from within.?

 

Because the voting public don't seem to agree with socialist ideas for roughly half a century (by the time of the next GE) but did vote Labour when they were more liberal. Doesnt that tell the Labour party something?

[melthebell 862]

28 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

But what is actually the point in winning if you don't improve the lot of the working class, yeah minimum wage was a positive but I am struggling with much else..always thought it looked bad when he cosied up to Murdock 

Lol, you don't change anything shouting from the outside. Being a socialist is morally the high ground in my eyes but labour are tearing themselves apart in a war they can't win, it just makes them smaller, as has been said, nu labore was the only labour government in recent Tory led history, it must tell you something, sadly

[Car Boot 10]

48 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

But what is actually the point in winning if you don't improve the lot of the working class, yeah minimum wage was a positive but I am struggling with much else..always thought it looked bad when he cosied up to Murdock 

I've always believed that the minimum wage was the greatest achievement of Tony Blair's Labour. Unfortunately, the Blairites set it at a very low rate and then refused to increase it by very much for years. 

 

Still, the minimum wage is a huge socialist achievement and even the Tories recognise that to remove it, or allow it to 'wither on the vine', would be political suicide.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Car Boot

[Car Boot 10]

5 hours ago, alchresearch said:

A witch hunt you're happy to carry on to eliminate all Blairites from the party.  The only people who made Labour electable.

 

As for it "dragging on forever" - thank God Jezza has made sure the antisemitism issue has been dealt with in a timely fashion.....

As we've seen with the the Tory party donor funded 'Change UK' group, the Blairites beliefs are interchangeable with the Tories.

 

The public will reject 'Change UK' at the ballot box. 

 

 

[hackey lad 3,928]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

But isnt the point of taking part in a competition (and thats what a GE is when it comes down to it) to win?

 

Because you can do more if you are the actual government then if you are in opposition.?

 

Are you suggesting that Labour would rather have the "moral high socailist ground" but not be in power than actually be the government and try to change things from within.?

 

Because the voting public don't seem to agree with socialist ideas for roughly half a century (by the time of the next GE) but did vote Labour when they were more liberal. Doesnt that tell the Labour party something?

That's Jeremys plan in a nutshell .(third paragraph ) He's nothing more than a protestor /campaigner.

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by hackey lad

[sheffbag 224]

38 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

As we've seen with the the Tory party donor funded 'Change UK' group, the Blairites beliefs are interchangeable with the Tories.

 

The public will reject 'Change UK' at the ballot box. 

 

 

Is that your way of saying that Labour will win the next election?

 

[Car Boot 10]

15 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Is that your way of saying that Labour will win the next election?

 

Labour will win the next general election. 

[sheffbag 224]

26 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Labour will win the next general election. 

i'll bite, name 30 of the 60 seats that it will gain in order to give a majority whilst not losing any of their current seats.

 

What reasoning do you have that would result in the UK overturning nearly 50 years of rejection of a socialist Labour Party in elections.

 

I'll even go further than 50 years. Labour won the second 1974 election with a majority of........3. 

 

You have to go back to 1966 - 53 years ago to the last time Labour had a sizeable majority if you are not counting the Blair years. Since 18 year olds have been able to vote, a socialist Labour has not had a majority in double figures in Parliament. so how is JC going to change that in 3 years time?

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by sheffbag

[banjodeano 28]

2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

But isnt the point of taking part in a competition (and thats what a GE is when it comes down to it) to win?

 

Because you can do more if you are the actual government then if you are in opposition.?

 

Are you suggesting that Labour would rather have the "moral high socailist ground" but not be in power than actually be the government and try to change things from within.?

 

Because the voting public don't seem to agree with socialist ideas for roughly half a century (by the time of the next GE) but did vote Labour when they were more liberal. Doesnt that tell the Labour party something?

nope, i am not saying that at all

[banjodeano 28]

2 hours ago, melthebell said:

Lol, you don't change anything shouting from the outside. Being a socialist is morally the high ground in my eyes but labour are tearing themselves apart in a war they can't win, it just makes them smaller, as has been said, nu labore was the only labour government in recent Tory led history, it must tell you something, sadly

but this is the point i am trying to make, time and time again i bang on about it, time and time again i repeat it, the Blairite faction of the party would rather see labour get thrashed at the ballot box and have another tory government than a Corbyn led one, they have done everything they can do...and still do, to undermine corbyn, they literally are tory lite in the labour party, and they should have no place in the party, can you imagine if they had thought "oh well, we are not going to take the party back to the right, lets just go along with Corbyn the silly old fool and try and help him"...can you imagine how much better they had done with a united front