The Labour Party - Part 2

[banjodeano 31]

Just now, Pettytom said:

You’ve just described incompetent leadership.

 

Why would you give a chance to a man who was clearly incompetent?

 

the man had the policies, there was no other reason that, i know he was flawed, but his policies were all that mattered, some people seem to be swayed by a flash suit and the gift of the gab....and dont really mind too much about the policies, i was half hoping that someone would take up the mantle after Corbyn, but sadly we now have starmer

[Pettytom 1]

Just now, banjodeano said:

the man had the policies, there was no other reason that, i know he was flawed, but his policies were all that mattered, some people seem to be swayed by a flash suit and the gift of the gab....and dont really mind too much about the policies, i was half hoping that someone would take up the mantle after Corbyn, but sadly we now have starmer

But you were fine with Starmer’s principles a few minutes ago.

 

What’s changed?

[banjodeano 31]

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

But you were fine with Starmer’s principles a few minutes ago.

 

What’s changed?

I dont trust him as far as i could throw him, to back up that claim was his commitment to unite the party, and he has clearly gone against that pledge, why should he be trusted on any other pledge,  ?

[Pettytom 1]

1 minute ago, banjodeano said:

I dont trust him as far as i could throw him, to back up that claim was his commitment to unite the party, and he has clearly gone against that pledge, why should he be trusted on any other pledge,  ?

Some would say that he’s well on the way to fulfilling that pledge.

 

I’d be one of them. There’s no point in trying to appease trouble causers.

[banjodeano 31]

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Some would say that he’s well on the way to fulfilling that pledge.

 

I’d be one of them. There’s no point in trying to appease trouble causers.

thats not uniting a party Tom...

[banjodeano 31]

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

Anyway, now you know where he stands. I’m surprised that you didn’t already know what the pledges were,  a big Labour man like yourself.

 

Don’t worry about party unity, by the way. The only dissent is just the usual rabble rousers making a fuss. Starmer seems to be showing the leadership that Corbyn failed to do, by calling their bluff.

 to be honest, i wouldn't call myself a "Big Labour man",  as you sarcastically labelled me, i wouldn't even call myself a Labour man.....i would call myself a socialist foremost, if the labour party go down the socialist route then that is great by me

[melthebell 863]

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

I’m just doing what you do and deflecting from the issue. I thought you might like to see how it looked from the other side.
 

Starmer doesn’t have policies. I’m sure you know the mechanism for policy making in the Labour Party. There won’t be any policies for at least 18 months. It would be stupid to do otherwise. I’m sure you can work out why. 

 

He does have some core principles though. I did think about copying and pasting them in a huge font, but here’s a link instead.

 

https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

 

Which bits do you disagree with?

im disgusted, doesnt look very tory lite to me

[nikki-red 308]

Posts have been removed.

You’ve had more than enough warnings about making personal comments.

Discuss the topic, not each other please.

Edited December 18, 2020 by nikki-red

[Delbow 700]

18 hours ago, Pettytom said:

This time last year, the Tories won a general election by 80 seats. Tories 44% Labour 32%.
 

Just in case you didn't  know.

 

Maybe, you’d like to reconsider your conclusion in the light of this new (to you) evidence.

The thing is, Labour under Starmer are currently on course to lose a general election by a similar margin to the one they lost by in 2017. When Corbyn's supporters tried to spin that as some kind of victory, others rightly pointed out that it wasn't good enough. Neither would it be good enough under Starmer. I appreciate they're not at the point of detailing policy yet, and as with the 2017 manifesto that can make a big difference, but something is going to have to change. Starmer appears to be triangulating in the way Clinton did, rather than showing any kind of vision for what he wants to offer people.

[andyofborg 11]

8 hours ago, Delbow said:

The thing is, Labour under Starmer are currently on course to lose a general election by a similar margin to the one they lost by in 2017. When Corbyn's supporters tried to spin that as some kind of victory, others rightly pointed out that it wasn't good enough. Neither would it be good enough under Starmer. I appreciate they're not at the point of detailing policy yet, and as with the 2017 manifesto that can make a big difference, but something is going to have to change. Starmer appears to be triangulating in the way Clinton did, rather than showing any kind of vision for what he wants to offer people.

it's very hard to turn round a loss of the scale of last year in one election, it's not impossible but requires the government to fail and fail badly. i doubt even johnson can fail that badly and i'm fairly sure if he looks like doing that the conservative party will replace him. 

 

at the minute people are looking to survive next week, some random vision for 4 years in the future really isn't going to cut through. It's far better now to point out the government's failings and present the vision nearer the time. It also means the vision will be more relevant. After all, would anyone making a big thing about the lack of epidemic planning at the last election been taken seriously? 

[andyofborg 11]

On 18/12/2020 at 19:25, banjodeano said:

he didn't have the confidence of his MP's because he was a socialist, it seems pretty clear to me that a lot of the now labour MP's are far from socialist, i wish he had been ruthless and put the boot into some of the people that attacked him, instead he just conceded to them, even offering some a place in the cabinet, but that was his make up, a shame really, i think the country lost a good man as a PM with principles, unlike the rest of his party, its a shame the back stabbing MP's didnt respect the will of the party members, if only they had given him a chance

the labour party isn't and never has been a socialist party. first past the post requires parties which have a broad appeal across the wider political spectrum. trying to turn it into a socialist party will drive the majority of voters away. you might feel intellectually satisifed with that but how will you change the world when the party only gets 2000 votes in an election?

 

[banjodeano 31]

52 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

the labour party isn't and never has been a socialist party. first past the post requires parties which have a broad appeal across the wider political spectrum. trying to turn it into a socialist party will drive the majority of voters away. you might feel intellectually satisifed with that but how will you change the world when the party only gets 2000 votes in an election?

 

hmmmm, that's quite odd, i am sure that it used to say it was on my membership card