New Labour Leader

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

Was it 68% of labour supporters or labour members sonyc?

As for taking a position imo they should now get behind the deal and try to make Brexit work, why wouldn’t they?

I didn’t hear Clive Lewis tonight but will try to catch up later.👍

There is no other option but to get behind the deal VW. But Starmer must take into account the Blue wall Boris established may well be thinking of returning Red after their shoddy treatment, especially during the pandemic. Starmer, if he lasts, must get a grip of that anger and say he voted with his conscience against a bad deal. Or even abstain citing a spin doctors reason.

[Bill 1,788]

4 hours ago, sonyc said:

I half agree with this. He is in an awkward spot, like the Labour party is (and has been for a long while). He ought to do the principled thing and have nothing to do with it. Forget red wall votes but do the right thing according to your conscience.

Politics is all about mediating though. Often you have to hold your nose. I do know though if I was an MP and told to vote for this and I disagreed I would be ought of a job.

Labour won't disappear though. That's far-fetched.

MPs are representatives. There is no mandate, they vote on the basis of the question, which should not with an eye to pandering to simpletons.

If that had been so there would have been no ending if capital punishment, no repeal of the illegality of homosexuality, no equal pay act, not even the banning of smoking (or the compulsory wearing if a seat belt and crash helmet (not at the same time).

This nonsense will cause not only a huge loss of money but will involve years of legal dispute.

To endorse that not only demonstrates poor judgement but leaves those voting for it with little credibility when the inevitable problems follow

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

MPs are representatives. There is no mandate, they vote on the basis of the question, which should not with an eye to pandering to simpletons.

If that had been so there would have been no ending if capital punishment, no repeal of the illegality of homosexuality, no equal pay act, not even the banning of smoking (or the compulsory wearing if a seat belt and crash helmet (not at the same time).

This nonsense will cause not only a huge loss of money but will involve years of legal dispute.

To endorse that not only demonstrates poor judgement but leaves those voting for it with little credibility when the inevitable problems follow

What you fail to take into account is that if the deal were to be voted down, then we would be leaving with no deal. And in a no-deal world there are two outcomes.

1. No-deal Brexit is a failure. Then Starmer and Labour gets the blame because we could have had a deal.

2. No-deal Brexit is either neutral or a success. Johnson gets the kudos and we owe nothing to the EU.

In both situations it is lose-lose for Starmer

 

And if you think Labour should vote against the deal because Jonson's 80-seat majority means he will win anyway then you are admitting that Labour is an irrelevance. Not the kind of image that Starmer wants to portray, and he would avoid at all costs.

[sonyc 5,519]

1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

What you fail to take into account is that if the deal were to be voted down, then we would be leaving with no deal. And in a no-deal world there are two outcomes.

1. No-deal Brexit is a failure. Then Starmer and Labour gets the blame because we could have had a deal.

2. No-deal Brexit is either neutral or a success. Johnson gets the kudos and we owe nothing to the EU.

In both situations it is lose-lose for Starmer

 

And if you think Labour should vote against the deal because Jonson's 80-seat majority means he will win anyway then you are admitting that Labour is an irrelevance. Not the kind of image that Starmer wants to portray, and he would avoid at all costs.

This is a weird logic RTB. Its one of those double binds that you've set up to try and discredit any action or intention. You could just as easily use the same tactic to describe Johnson's deal - that it is a failure because he hasn't achieved freedom from the EU, that he hasn't achieved a no deal ......and so on and so on. And how would voting according to your conscience mean its an irrelevance? Surely any vote that any opposition makes when a sizeable majority exists (in any administration or parliament) is likely to fail. It doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Your examples are pure sophistry.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

30 minutes ago, sonyc said:

This is a weird logic RTB. Its one of those double binds that you've set up to try and discredit any action or intention. You could just as easily use the same tactic to describe Johnson's deal - that it is a failure because he hasn't achieved freedom from the EU, that he hasn't achieved a no deal ......and so on and so on. And how would voting according to your conscience mean its an irrelevance? Surely any vote that any opposition makes when a sizeable majority exists (in any administration or parliament) is likely to fail. It doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Your examples are pure sophistry.

I'm looking at it from Starmer's point of view and how he has to present himself to the electorate. Starmer is in a double-bind, there isn't a clear-cut way for him to get a win. The very best he can do is what you mention - he can say that he voted according to his conscience, but that presents difficulties for him. If he says that then he can hardly demand a whip on his MPs because they will demand to be allowed to vote according to their consciences and Starmer gets attacked by the Tories for being weak and unable to control his people. And the country will also look on a vote of conscience as a weakness, suggesting he is copping out of making a decision.

What he has done is said he will vote for the deal which makes him look more Statesman than Corbyn, but by adding, as he did, that he will fight to improve the deal (ie. get closer to the EU) he is already framing the next election to be about Brexit. I dont know about you, Sonyc, but I suspect most people in the country are suffering from Brexit fatigue and will be even more so in four years from now. That's nine years since the referendum and the country is ready to move on. And what makes people think the EU will want us back in?????

[sonyc 5,519]

6 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I'm looking at it from Starmer's point of view and how he has to present himself to the electorate. Starmer is in a double-bind, there isn't a clear-cut way for him to get a win. The very best he can do is what you mention - he can say that he voted according to his conscience, but that presents difficulties for him. If he says that then he can hardly demand a whip on his MPs because they will demand to be allowed to vote according to their consciences and Starmer gets attacked by the Tories for being weak and unable to control his people. And the country will also look on a vote of conscience as a weakness, suggesting he is copping out of making a decision.

What he has done is said he will vote for the deal which makes him look more Statesman than Corbyn, but by adding, as he did, that he will fight to improve the deal (ie. get closer to the EU) he is already framing the next election to be about Brexit. I dont know about you, Sonyc, but I suspect most people in the country are suffering from Brexit fatigue and will be even more so in four years from now. That's nine years since the referendum and the country is ready to move on. And what makes people think the EU will want us back in?????

Yeh, I'm fed up with Brexit. For me it's not been a gift that I wanted as you'll have gathered from recent posts.

I fear we are at the start though, not the end of it. I see tons of disputes ahead. I can recall splits in ownership in a former job (from public to private sector). It was meant to be a 'no fault' divorce but the ramifications lasted years.

This is an international divorce isn't it. And as citizens we are so divided as a country. It won't be easy. I know it's not been a real marriage but the analogy is a decent one. One side or the other won't get over it. Grievances will abound. This thread shows the fault lines doesn't it. People find it hard to find compromise and by the way, I used to be a relationship counsellor/therapist (one of a few specialisms hahaha) so I know all about conflict. And you'll perhaps understand why I see lots of sides.

I suppose some kind of new vision is needed to unite but that looks far too hopeful and idealistic. Someone has to do it. Just coming out of a trading bloc will not be sufficient. A far greater purpose is required. You tell me though, where are we going? Brexit can't just solve a thing like a new purpose. If you take the divorce analogy, what next for new relationships? Who is going to trust us?

Lots of damage done... that it appears it going to take years to heal. We won't be going back to the EU but may try and get closer as you've intimated. Perhaps that is a realistic ambition for Starmer. 

[sonyc 5,519]

Only 37 Labour MPs voted abstained then (includes just one against).

[Herman 9,767]

A shame really but they were damned if they do, damned if they don't. Not sure what's going to happen now, but at least we have a foot on the ladder to climb back up.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

A shame really but they were damned if they do, damned if they don't. Not sure what's going to happen now, but at least we have a foot on the ladder to climb back up.

As a party, Labour is in a quandry. Pick your policies according to your beliefs or ones that may get you elected.

As a member, while I welcomed Blair at first, became completely disillusioned with his Tory like policies.

I agree with many of the policies that the party, under Corbyn, chose to endorse. Shame was, leaving aside Brexit, so many thought they were bribes and also unaffordable.

However, I don't believe in revolution and we have to be a party of progression. 

Starmer has to rally the party around a common idea or set of policies. And I'm not sure he is capable. The north will return to its roots but we do not need to build up a party full of swing voters. We need to steadily prove to enough people that we are capable of governing and our policies are nothing to be afraid of but will enhance all the nation and not just the privileged.

[sonyc 5,519]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

As a party, Labour is in a quandry. Pick your policies according to your beliefs or ones that may get you elected.

As a member, while I welcomed Blair at first, became completely disillusioned with his Tory like policies.

I agree with many of the policies that the party, under Corbyn, chose to endorse. Shame was, leaving aside Brexit, so many thought they were bribes and also unaffordable.

However, I don't believe in revolution and we have to be a party of progression. 

Starmer has to rally the party around a common idea or set of policies. And I'm not sure he is capable. The north will return to its roots but we do not need to build up a party full of swing voters. We need to steadily prove to enough people that we are capable of governing and our policies are nothing to be afraid of but will enhance all the nation and not just the privileged.

If more people thought and felt about the world as you KG then we'd be in a better place.

Corbyn was simply un-electable and put back the Labour Party for many years. Starmer has a real challenge on. The question is whether he will be able to forge some kind of momentum. He needs to, because whatever anyone's politics, this present administration is doing the UK a lot of damage. It reminds me of the dark days of Thatcher. In some ways I'm unsure actually if it isn't worse. I mistrust a lot of them.

People I do have more time for on the other side are Tories like Roger Gale, and whilst I wouldn't vote for him, I applaud him for calling out Johnson on quite a few matters. We need people to run the country with far better moral principles. I know for the few Tory voters on this board that there is little wrong with Johnson et al - otherwise we may well have heard from them. It appears only those of the left are prepared to criticise the left but it doesn't work the other way very often.

[Van wink 2,994]

I have no doubt that Starmer did the right thing today, for me he has made the party far more electable by taking a responsible position and moving on from type of anger that still pervades on here. From an idealistic purist perspective he may have got it wrong, certainly as viewed by the many Labour supporters who were convinced that JC was the man to lead our country, but I suspect for the rest of us, most people, will see what he has done is take a measured decision in the best interest of the Party and the country.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

I have no doubt that Starmer did the right thing today, for me he has made the party far more electable by taking a responsible position and moving on from type of anger that still pervades on here. From an idealistic purist perspective he may have got it wrong, certainly as viewed by the many Labour supporters who were convinced that JC was the man to lead our country, but I suspect for the rest of us, most people, will see what he has done is take a measured decision in the best interest of the Party and the country.

Our CLP is divided. Some activists are talking of resigning, moving to the Greens etc. So I doubt the Party will ever come together completely. Too many thinkers whereas the Tories close ranks.

But I fear, my Labour Party, then one I want has gone just too far centrist. I wanted a change, I wanted a female leader (not Bailey).

There is undoubted scope to challenge the current Government for its generally accepted mishandling of Brexit and the pandemic. But it isn't happening. The Deal is not one I believe can be negotiated in our favour in the future. But it is a deal that avoids calamity.

Starmer will meet the needs of many with his policies of course. He is an appeaser and many who voted against the Party rather than for the Tories will take to him.

[Van wink 2,994]

8 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Our CLP is divided. Some activists are talking of resigning, moving to the Greens etc. So I doubt the Party will ever come together completely. Too many thinkers whereas the Tories close ranks.

But I fear, my Labour Party, then one I want has gone just too far centrist. I wanted a change, I wanted a female leader (not Bailey).

There is undoubted scope to challenge the current Government for its generally accepted mishandling of Brexit and the pandemic. But it isn't happening. The Deal is not one I believe can be negotiated in our favour in the future. But it is a deal that avoids calamity.

Starmer will meet the needs of many with his policies of course. He is an appeaser and many who voted against the Party rather than for the Tories will take to him.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out for him, for me he represents a Labour Party I could support as opposed to the JC school which totally alienated me. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 30/12/2020 at 19:17, keelansgrandad said:

Our CLP is divided. Some activists are talking of resigning, moving to the Greens etc. So I doubt the Party will ever come together completely. Too many thinkers whereas the Tories close ranks.

But I fear, my Labour Party, then one I want has gone just too far centrist. I wanted a change, I wanted a female leader (not Bailey).

There is undoubted scope to challenge the current Government for its generally accepted mishandling of Brexit and the pandemic. But it isn't happening. The Deal is not one I believe can be negotiated in our favour in the future. But it is a deal that avoids calamity.

Starmer will meet the needs of many with his policies of course. He is an appeaser and many who voted against the Party rather than for the Tories will take to him.

The Labour Party never has a good cleanout of the stables. The Tory Party did, and got rid of a whole bunch of malcontents. You obviously won't like how the Tories refreshed themselves but it helped them to achieve a landslide result in the election having got rid of the likes of Hammond, Gauke and Grieve.

The last time Labour did something similar was when Tony Blair flushed out the Militant supporters and Labour went on to win the next three elections. So until Labour has a big cleanout and realign itself with it's voter base it isn't going anywhere. Starmer seems free of ideology so he probably knows what needs to be done but has he got the cojones to do it?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The Labour Party never has a good cleanout of the stables. The Tory Party did, and got rid of a whole bunch of malcontents. You obviously won't like how the Tories refreshed themselves but it helped them to achieve a landslide result in the election having got rid of the likes of Hammond, Gauke and Grieve.

The last time Labour did something similar was when Tony Blair flushed out the Militant supporters and Labour went on to win the next three elections. So until Labour has a big cleanout and realign itself with it's voter base it isn't going anywhere. Starmer seems free of ideology so he probably knows what needs to be done but has he got the cojones to do it?

 

In short, no he hasn't

[sonyc 5,519]

#StarmerQuits is the rumour number #1 on Twitter. Lots of theories. As yet no substance. Expect we will hear more.

[Herman 9,767]

4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

#StarmerQuits is the rumour number #1 on Twitter. Lots of theories. As yet no substance. Expect we will hear more.

I saw that earlier but most reports were coming from Corbynites, so am not sure if it is a genuine rumour or the far left stirring. (It does seem strange that more effort is being put into targetting Starmer than Johnson. Nowt as strange as folk.)

[Van wink 2,994]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

I saw that earlier but most reports were coming from Corbynites, so am not sure if it is a genuine rumour or the far left stirring. (It does seem strange that more effort is being put into targetting Starmer than Johnson. Nowt as strange as folk.)

I suspect Billy started it, then it was retweeted by Horsey.....

[Bill 1,788]

22 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The Labour Party never has a good cleanout of the stables. The Tory Party did, and got rid of a whole bunch of malcontents. You obviously won't like how the Tories refreshed themselves but it helped them to achieve a landslide result in the election having got rid of the likes of Hammond, Gauke and Grieve.

The last time Labour did something similar was when Tony Blair flushed out the Militant supporters and Labour went on to win the next three elections. So until Labour has a big cleanout and realign itself with it's voter base it isn't going anywhere. Starmer seems free of ideology so he probably knows what needs to be done but has he got the cojones to do it?

More lies from hand crank

Militant was taken on and defeated in the mid 80's, and when 291 members were expelled from the Labour Party in 199, it gave up its tactic of entryism into the Labour Party .................... well before Blair's time.

Whereas the ERG tale has long been wagging the Tory Party dog - and the Tories have had, and still do, 'entryist' problems from the far right who far from packing up and going home after the collapse of such parties as the BNP, UKIP and the Brexit Company have sought and gained control of many local constituency branches - in an attempt to drive out the moderates.

I would expect that battle to split the Tory Party again, as it has done on a regular basis since the Corn laws of the early 19th century.

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I suspect Billy started it, then it was retweeted by Horsey.....

and t'was a day ago we were supposedly the same person

 

ps the idea of you rightys is that you stick to the same lie

 

[horsefly 4,300]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

and t'was a day ago we were supposedly the same person

 

ps the idea of you rightys is that you stick to the same lie

 

The man is clearly obsessed with us for some reason Bill. I blocked him as his pathetic childish playground behaviour is just too boring to bother with.

[Van wink 2,994]

Your unpleasant desire to respond to a bit of a leg pull with images of Nazis says more about you than about me buddy, pathetic!

Edited January 2, 2021 by Van wink

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

The man is clearly obsessed with us for some reason Bill. I blocked him as his pathetic childish playground behaviour is just too boring to bother with.

😂

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

The man is clearly obsessed with us for some reason Bill. I blocked him as his pathetic childish playground behaviour is just too boring to bother with.

the problem there is you have to block RTB, Barbie Boy and a few others, as well

but I think I will put them on the 'naughty step' for a bit

as there are only so many lies you can put up with - see RTB/Militant

as they push down the thread reasoned posts from others

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

the problem there is you have to block RTB, Barbie Boy and a few others, as well

but I think I will put them on the 'naughty step' for a bit

as there are only so many lies you can put up with - see RTB/Militant

as they push down the thread reasoned posts from others

Give Clucky Nora a bit of a go

[Well b back 3,208]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

#StarmerQuits is the rumour number #1 on Twitter. Lots of theories. As yet no substance. Expect we will hear more.

This may help Sonyc but of course this could be a fake account as well.

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/david-lammy-responds-rumours-keir-starmer-resigning-labour-leader-260133

[sonyc 5,519]

2 minutes ago, Well b back said:

This may help Sonyc but of course this could be a fake account as well.

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/david-lammy-responds-rumours-keir-starmer-resigning-labour-leader-260133

Very odd.

This link looks mighty suspicious though.

[Herman 9,767]

It could all be a simple distraction from this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/detailed-poll-shows-boris-johnson-risks-losing-his-majority-and-his-seat-7tm9p3dp7

[Bill 1,788]

Ricardo must have missed that, as he is usually so quick of the mark with polls

Looking at that I would suggest there has been movement from the Tories to Labour (6pts) with another 2pts shift to the Bigot Company. Movement from the LDems points towards 'tactical voting' to be rid of the fat fraud and his band of 3rd rate ministers

The impression seems to be that of dissatisfaction with the government and Johnson in particular. Brexit lies and Covid incompetence don't make for popular support.........and given how the shtfest of the first is now only just beginning it will not get ant better. Nor will the governments handling of Covid get any better either.

It might 'play to the gallery'' and the feeble-minded, but Johnson's slogan riddled exhortations count for little when there is nothing there but failure. World beating track and trace and one million vaccinations per hour come up against reality. Just as are the lies about brexit delivering frictionless trade........or the ability to move to and work in the EU.

Sure this is only a snapshot of how folk feel at the moment, but the worst is yet to come I fear.

Where then the buffoon, when his failings will really hit home ?

Perhaps he will need to follow his father (literally) and claim a French passport and hope they will grant him asylum

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Bill

[Van wink 2,994]

Looks like Starmer made the right move supporting the Brexit deal. About time we had a Labour leader who has some political nouse!

Edited January 2, 2021 by Van wink