The Labour Party - Part 2

[El Cid 214]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

As the wiki page puts it:

 

"Presentationally, the abandonment of the socialist principles of the original Clause IV represented a break with Labour's past and, specifically, a break with its 1983 Manifesto (dubbed "the longest suicide note in history", by Gerald Kaufman, one of the party's MPs), in which greater state ownership was proposed.

Non-profit making organisations are not state owned, so perhaps a clause about state ownership is out of date?

[apelike 10]

46 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Non-profit making organisations are not state owned, so perhaps a clause about state ownership is out of date?

But by doing that you change the very notion of what socialism is about so you might as well abandon the idea of socialism, which is basically what has already happened.

[Mister Gee 813]

8 minutes ago, apelike said:

But by doing that you change the very notion of what socialism is about so you might as well abandon the idea of socialism, which is basically what has already happened.

It can’t have happened because you keep going on about it.

[El Cid 214]

44 minutes ago, apelike said:

But by doing that you change the very notion of what socialism is about so you might as well abandon the idea of socialism, which is basically what has already happened.

I dont believe in following a dogma that was put in place in 1917, some on the hard left obviously do. I dont think Starmer wants to follow the dogma of the hard left either, just a feeling.

[apelike 10]

27 minutes ago, El Cid said:

I dont believe in following a dogma that was put in place in 1917, some on the hard left obviously do. I dont think Starmer wants to follow the dogma of the hard left either, just a feeling.

I think you are right. If Starmer survives after the next by-election coming up then he will need to do something akin to what Blair did when he created "New Labour" and got voted in. Either that or another attempt could be made at creating another Social Democratic Party and maybe this time it will survive and become popular. Starmer needs to get rid of the leftists in the party and create another New Labour.

[banjodeano 31]

6 hours ago, apelike said:

I think you are right. If Starmer survives after the next by-election coming up then he will need to do something akin to what Blair did when he created "New Labour" and got voted in. Either that or another attempt could be made at creating another Social Democratic Party and maybe this time it will survive and become popular. Starmer needs to get rid of the leftists in the party and create another New Labour.

that is already what he is trying to do, and its not working, he is losing the left wing votes, not gaining the centrists, and losing the faith in the unions....

[El Cid 214]

4 hours ago, banjodeano said:

that is already what he is trying to do, and its not working, he is losing the left wing votes, not gaining the centrists, and losing the faith in the unions....

The left can either accept that is what is happening, or they can cause havok and allow the Tories another term in 2023.

A different leader would still not be a left wing leader, because some left wingers are no longer members, they elected Starmer in the first place.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Also: if Scotland walks away, that's Labour done for on a permanent basis. It can never win for the whole of GB without a large number of Scottish MPs. Maybe the DUP's woes in NI might induce one or more GB political parties to try again over there?

[banjodeano 31]

7 hours ago, El Cid said:

The left can either accept that is what is happening, or they can cause havok and allow the Tories another term in 2023.

A different leader would still not be a left wing leader, because some left wingers are no longer members, they elected Starmer in the first place.

what is really the point, if starmer gets elected, it wouldnt be a far cry off from what we have now, , one has a red rossette, and one a blue one, but other than that there would be little difference, 

as for the left causing chaos and allowing the Tories to run another term, that is exactly what the right did, they much preferred a Tory government to a Corbyn one, that showed you where the Blairite Labour party really stands, you only had to look at the disappointment on Stephen Kinnocks face when it appeared that Corbyn was doing far better than expected, he was crushed.

[andyofborg 11]

23 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

what is really the point, if starmer gets elected,

if Starmer gets elected then it means the electorate have voted in sufficient numbers to make it so. Something the electorate had two opportunities to do for Corbyn and chose both times not too. As disappointing as you clearly find it, you need to acknowledge that the electorate have shown no interest in either Corbyn or his policies. and have never shown any interest in voting for them for at least 50 years. 

 

 

[banjodeano 31]

17 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

if Starmer gets elected then it means the electorate have voted in sufficient numbers to make it so. Something the electorate had two opportunities to do for Corbyn and chose both times not too. As disappointing as you clearly find it, you need to acknowledge that the electorate have shown no interest in either Corbyn or his policies. and have never shown any interest in voting for them for at least 50 years. 

 

 

Im not in the slightest bit disappointed,  perhaps dismayed yes.. but if the people of this country think the likes of Johnson or Starmer would represent them better than Corbyn, then let then crack on with it, it will not change my beliefs in the slightest..

My only disappointment is that the majority of the labour party MP's never gave Corbyn a chance, and plotted to undermine him from day one, Corbyn did well in 2017, if only they had got fully behind him, and to think what might have been

18 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Corbyn didn't do as badly as expected in 2017 because many traditional Labour voters  remained loyal and stuck by the party and supported their local Labour MP rather than Corbyn.  Stephen Kinnock wasn't the only Labour MP who was disappointed with the 2017 result which enabled Corbyn to continue as the party leader and do more damage to the party.

I cant agree, i would say the quite the opposite, Corbyn struck a chord with many people, the local MP's were irrelevant 

[Guest sibon]

1 minute ago, banjodeano said:

Im not in the slightest bit disappointed,  perhaps dismayed yes.. but if the people of this country think the likes of Johnson or Starmer would represent them better than Corbyn, then let then crack on with it, it will not change my beliefs in the slightest..

My only disappointment is that the majority of the labour party MP's never gave Corbyn a chance, and plotted to undermine him from day one, Corbyn did well in 2017, if only they had got fully behind him, and to think what might have been

He lost two elections.

 

He lost seats in the last election that had been solid labour for over 50 years.

 

He was a failure.