LessoftheLip
Well-known member
No argument from me there.They is those who voted for the Johnson/tories whether on this board or not.
No argument from me there.They is those who voted for the Johnson/tories whether on this board or not.
Hang on a minute. Is someone suggesting that there are no posters (including Boro fans) on here who hate Starmer?
My sides are splitting
I don't agree. He couldn't control his party. Even if he could there is no garuantteetee he would have won an election.No he isn't. The reason we are where we are is because Corbyn's own party (the Blairites) along with various Zionist groups and the media, conducted a huge sabotage campaign from the first day of his leadership to the last and it's still going on. People can still go on the BBC and state that Corbyn is an antiSemite and it still goes unchallenged.
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.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.
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 certainly don't make it easy for people to engage with you in a more positive way, which I've tried to do recently, when you use some of the comments like "Corbyn cavalry .... grow up and move on........the lot of you frothing at the mouth. It's pathetic. I imagine you all sticking pins in a Starmer doll."
Maybe a bit less hyperbole might help and please don't take that as being patronising, it's not meant to be that way.
I've said it before, but I would imagine if you and I met up for a drink, that we would probably agree on the vast majority of subjects, even about our team, and the fact that there are some things we wouldn't agree on is fine.
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.He used to be better than this.
Well I'm pleased to say I fall into neither category. Although amazingly I have been described as a Tory shill on hereThere was a lot of support on this board for Brexit, and anti Corbyn arguments, though few were based on proposed policies at the time. I'd say quite a few voted Tory from the board judging by the local results.
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.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.
When was this? i don't remember that at all.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 thay 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.
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.unprecedented amount of sabotage
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?You can have all the best policies, if the nation see a weak inneffective leader, you cannot win.
The Vote Of Confidence.Then why all the effort to make him lose
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.Once he lost the 2016 VoC he had a huge target on his back.
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?
Ignored. Should have done it earlier.
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.The Vote Of Confidence.
That was part of the sabotage
I'm sorry you are starting to sound like a cult member.I meant why all the effort to make him lose the general election?
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?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.
I would assume because some hated him so much as a leader, which would seem to be the case given the VoC.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?
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.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.
Oh dear. What you see as bias I see as realism.BBG you are always going to see things coloured by your bias. I don't really have a bias.