LessoftheLip
Well-known member
No argument from me there.
Luciana Berger rejoins Labour Party
- Thread starter TeessideCleveland
- Start date
Hang on a minute. Is someone suggesting that there are no posters (including Boro fans) on here who hate Starmer?
My sides are splitting
Nope, true to form LotL you obviously haven't understood what you've read. I'll help you out - its the insinuation about why some on here may hate Starmer.
Laughing
Well-known member
I don't agree. He couldn't control his party. Even if he could there is no garuantteetee he would have won an election.
We do know he lost 2 one monumentally.
He couldn't run his party and the electorate, rightly thought he couldn't run a country.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Well if you're discounting the unprecedented amount of sabotage that it took to make him lose those elections you're right. . And in a way you're right that he couldn't control his party but that's because his party was full of right wing, Blairite, Israel supporting wreckers who were determined to do anything to prevent a pro Palestinian become PM, and I don't believe you didn't notice that. See my three links above for examples.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
You know I have to put up with a hell of a lot more thrown at me than I give out the other way. I've had a few usernames over the years, not my fault and I've never tried to hide it. So when I'm labelled a troll by one particular poster and others jump on the bandwagon it grates. I post about many topics other than politics on this forum - music, beer, travel, Boro (obviously), football, F1, tv, movies etc. But there's half a dozen posters who will engage with me on politics only and generally only when I've offered any praise to Keir Starmer or the Labour Party. The engagement is never positive. The 'particular' poster announced that he had me on ignore but still manages to see my political posts and reply to them whether directly or indirectly. How does that work?
You know fella I said exactly the same about you when you supported a post by someone who accused me of condoning racism. So we can both be disappointed with each other.
Last edited:
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Well I'm pleased to say I fall into neither category. Although amazingly I have been described as a Tory shill on here
Laughing
Well-known member
You shouldn't be askinh whether I noticed it or not. The question you should be asking is why did he allow it to continue.
He was never PM material and I think you know it.
You can have all the best policies, if the nation see a weak inneffective leader, you cannot win.
When was this? i don't remember that at all.
I've always said to you that it's fine that we disagree about Starmer and that I don't have a problem with you. I even tried to change your mind when you were thinking about leaving the forum.
Muttley
Well-known member
Once he lost the 2016 VoC he had a huge target on his back. As I said previously he didn't just lose by a whisker, he lost 40 to 127 and therefore with such a limited number of supporters it was inevitable that there would be plotting against him and attempts to precipitate his departure. He should have resigned at that point. Everything that came after was a direct consequence of that stubborn decision.
It's impossible to say with any certainty that the "unprecedented amount of sabotage" caused the loss in 2017. Obviously it didn't help, did it precipitate the loss? Impossible to say.
Tarring Starmer as a "Tory with a red tie" or any other of the juvenile sobriquets in common parlance we hear hereabouts is hardly any better than portraying Corbyn as a "Commie", both are unhelpful hyperbole. Judge the Starmer Labour Party on the manifesto for the next GE then vote accordingly.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Then why all the effort to make him lose if there was no need to implicate themselves? Why were so many big hitters bricking it that he may pull it off? Why not do what we ex Labour members are being asked to do now and hold our noses so that we can gain power and then effect change if things go awry?
Muttley
Well-known member
The Vote Of Confidence.
It's that simple. He was a dead man walking. In politics you are either seen as a "man/woman on the way up" that you can follow to climb the ladder or "yesterday's man/woman on the way down" that no one will want to commit to because their demise is imminent.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
That was part of the sabotage. As were the leadership challenges and the dozens of resignations from the shadow cabinet, and the NEC dragging their feet over the antisemitism cases it was sitting on. He'd hardly warmed the leader's seat before they wanted him out.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I meant why all the effort to make him lose the general election? They had no confidence in him which manifested itself in a state of panic that he was going to win? That makes no sense at all.
Muttley
Well-known member
I'm sorry you are starting to sound like a cult member.
In 2017 he did a lot better than anyone thought he was going to. The VoC put the target on his back "yesterday's man" so those 127 were positioning themselves for the next leader. They never believed that he would win in 2017 and thought that he would go afterwards. It's politics. I can guarantee you that the exact same scenario is playing out in the Tory Party with people positioning themselves to ally with the NEXT leader after Sunak. Lee Anderson slipping the knife in today. Sunak has failed to make any headway in the polls and will go when he loses in the GE.
gregorgregorovich
Well-known member
He had a huge target on his back, as soon as he won the Leadership election. If it's impossible to say that the unprecendented amount of sabotage caused the loss in 2017, why did I see a programe where senior Labour MP's were absolutely distraught, that the Labour Party had done far better than expected and could barely hide their disappointment. Why has the Forde report not been published in full? Why has the Labour Party spent over £1,000,000 fighting to try and find where supposed leaks about the appalling tweets and whatsapp messages by Employees of the Labour Party against sitting Labour MP's , despite their own Lawyers saying there was little chance of success? Why was money funnelled from marginal seats to safe seats of those who opposed Corbyn?
In the interest of balance, I do not think Starmer is a Red Tory and I am almost certain to be voting for the Labour candidate at the next election. But why does it seem that those on the left of the Party are the ones whose every tweet or like is being monitored, yet those who say they would knife Corbyn in the front, who left and campaigned against the Labour party or even those who crossed the floor. or those who have made openly racist tweets are not even investigated, as to whether they have broken party rules. Why is it that one of my friends, who was recently being asked to stand as a prospective Labour Councillor in the local elections, has since been reported and investigated and is facing expulsion for liking a tweet by a proscribed organisation, that he didn't even know was proscribed?
So, whose cult are we on about?
I will judge the Labour Party ( not the Starmer Labour Party) on it's manifesto and as I said earlier will almost certainly vote for it, on the basis that thin gruel is better than no gruel. I will, as I have done tonight, try to persuade wavering voters to vote Labour at the next election, as I have since joining as a 16 year old in 1973, notwithstanding whoever the leader was at any given time.
Laughing
Well-known member
I would assume because some hated him so much as a leader, which would seem to be the case given the VoC.
Finally, westminster is very much a bubble and where Labour were concerned it was a well insulated bubble. They had no idea what was going on with the electorate and what people wanted. That was clear given how badly they handled brexit and the 2019 election.
BBG you are always going to see things coloured by your bias. I don't really have a bias. I liked Corbyn. He was an appalling leader. He did nothing to control his party. I may be wrong but I don't recall him ever removing the whip from any of his MP's. As I said, thoroughy decent fella, not a leader.
Exactly and this is why people have such a low opinion of politicians and say things like "they are all the same". I wouldn't say they have no idea what people wanted but it is more that they don't care or they think the electorate are wrong and don't know what they want. They don't respect the electorate. Politicians aren't all the same but a large portion of MPs within the 2 main parties want the same thing and share the same ideals and if there was no parties and these people were voting independently then the right of the Labour party and the left of the Tory would have far more in common. There are plenty who want more concrete left/right things but they rarely get their chance to be seriously influential (on the left especially) so that is why, on the whole, "they are all the same" rings true.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Oh dear. What you see as bias I see as realism.
In Starmer I see a man who lied his way to the leadership by trashing every pledge he made.
A man who is in the pockets of the Zionist lobbyists.
A man who has kicked dozens of Jews out of the party for being pro Palestine.
A man who has kicked the Forde report into the long grass rather than addressing it after it found that the Labour Party was racist and ran a hierarchy of racism.
And a man who despite being a top barrister and rising to DPP, is an absolutely useless politician who struggles with the simplest questions. Questions that a proper politician like Corbyn would smash out of the park.
mercury_redstone7
Well-known member
Nano Said
Exactly and this is why people have such a low opinion of politicians and say things like "they are all the same". I wouldn't say they have no idea what people wanted but it is more that they don't care or they think the electorate are wrong and don't know what they want. They don't respect the electorate. Politicians aren't all the same but a large portion of MPs within the 2 main parties want the same thing and share the same ideals and if there was no parties and these people were voting independently then the right of the Labour party and the left of the Tory would have far more in common. There are plenty who want more concrete left/right things but they rarely get their chance to be seriously influential (on the left especially) so that is why, on the whole, "they are all the same" rings true.
Mercury Redstone 7 said:
Most people don't really care much for MPs until they are needed for something personal or in particular.
As a normal working man, you just want to get on with things in life that are important to you, like - work, family, Health Care, Education, Jobs , decent wages and good working conditions.
When you look out the window, you want neighbours who are old, or sick to be looked after, youth to have opportunities to flourish.
To see the utilities renationalised.
Good amounts of policing to ensure low crime neighbourhoods and educating the educated people to not to $hit in the own backyard by using or peddling drugs (recreational cnts)
We see very little in the way of positive progress instead put up with little or no progress at all. We are gaslit by the idiot media who are bought and paid for or politically infiltrated by greed corrupt far right vvankers.
Remember when our own people became that racist and used shi tty words like sovereignty, taking us out of a place we should have been trading, working with.
Look at where we are now?
Instead on here just now we have people supposedly full fat socialist not middle of the road ones moaning on about yesterdays man who fvcked about over the years making enemies with his own supposed kind
Exactly and this is why people have such a low opinion of politicians and say things like "they are all the same". I wouldn't say they have no idea what people wanted but it is more that they don't care or they think the electorate are wrong and don't know what they want. They don't respect the electorate. Politicians aren't all the same but a large portion of MPs within the 2 main parties want the same thing and share the same ideals and if there was no parties and these people were voting independently then the right of the Labour party and the left of the Tory would have far more in common. There are plenty who want more concrete left/right things but they rarely get their chance to be seriously influential (on the left especially) so that is why, on the whole, "they are all the same" rings true.
Mercury Redstone 7 said:
Most people don't really care much for MPs until they are needed for something personal or in particular.
As a normal working man, you just want to get on with things in life that are important to you, like - work, family, Health Care, Education, Jobs , decent wages and good working conditions.
When you look out the window, you want neighbours who are old, or sick to be looked after, youth to have opportunities to flourish.
To see the utilities renationalised.
Good amounts of policing to ensure low crime neighbourhoods and educating the educated people to not to $hit in the own backyard by using or peddling drugs (recreational cnts)
We see very little in the way of positive progress instead put up with little or no progress at all. We are gaslit by the idiot media who are bought and paid for or politically infiltrated by greed corrupt far right vvankers.
Remember when our own people became that racist and used shi tty words like sovereignty, taking us out of a place we should have been trading, working with.
Look at where we are now?
Instead on here just now we have people supposedly full fat socialist not middle of the road ones moaning on about yesterdays man who fvcked about over the years making enemies with his own supposed kind
Last edited: