Corbyn won't be a Labour candidate at General Election

Those saying voting for labour is the same as getting tory, could I ask what we do when you vote greens or don’t vote at all and we actually do get the tories again? Or do you really think it’s a safe bet we’ll get labour so you can afford to be edgy and independent of thought?
 
bumface said:
Cobblers.
Click to expand...
Muttley said:
This isn't true. As I said there were undoubtedly "plotters" working against Corbyn, there always are in any party but it was a long way short of "half". However, even if it was, a "Leader" who cannot "lead" his party is unlikely ever to lead the country.


Of course not. But, similarly you cannot expect any party to perfectly mirror your own expectations and beliefs. The example you gave earlier of the "Change Party" perfectly illustrated this. Albeit not in the way you thought it did.
Click to expand...
You're right Muttley, it was a long way from half. On a motion of no confidence Labour MPs voted 197 - 40 against Corbyn.
 
xxlshirts_fit_all said:
Those saying voting for labour is the same as getting tory, could I ask what we do when you vote greens or don’t vote at all and we actually do get the tories again? Or do you really think it’s a safe bet we’ll get labour so you can afford to be edgy and independent of thought?
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with being edgy. It's about having principles and sticking to them. A vote for Starmer's Labour would be me telling them that I agree with this massive shift to the right that we've seen since Sir Plank became leader. I don't agree with that shift to the right, so I won't vote for them. Simple as that.
 
Muttley said:
Of course not. But, similarly you cannot expect any party to perfectly mirror your own expectations and beliefs. The example you gave earlier of the "Change Party" perfectly illustrated this. Albeit not in the way you thought it did.
Click to expand...
I don't expect any party to perfectly mirror my expectations. I plan to vote for a party which match them far closer than labour.

There only being two parties and everyone having to squeeze their ideals into voting for them is a boobish notion. It's ridiculous. Yet we cling to it because we are a ridiculous people.
 
xxlshirts_fit_all said:
Those saying voting for labour is the same as getting tory, could I ask what we do when you vote greens or don’t vote at all and we actually do get the tories again? Or do you really think it’s a safe bet we’ll get labour so you can afford to be edgy and independent of thought?
Click to expand...
The Tories have done more to help renters than labour ever have. The Tories did not engage in a murderous war in the middle east.
The Tories completely decimated the public services and welfare state. I have no confidence whatsoever that labour would not have done the same.
The Tories are all on the make. They are a dishonourable bunch of chancers. I have no confidence that labour are not the same. The way they rounded on Corbyn and the utter horror they had at actually being a progressive party tells me this.

Besides which. The planet and the state of the environment is far more important than any of that. It's staggering how many people just brush off these issues. Do you not give a **** about your kids and the state of the world they will inherit?
 
I genuinely think Corbyn supporters want a Tory win - 'centrists' are Tories, there is no difference etc
'If we're going to be run by Tories it might as wel be proper Tories'

I disagree
 
1finny said:
I do smile at those who say Starmer is indistinguishable from a Tory. It demonstrates either laziness or dogma (maybe both).
Click to expand...

Reeves is saying we're getting austerity economics and Rayner says we're tagging migrants? Starmer's Labour is very much in the same place politically as Cameron's tories were.
 
Most Labour voters wont care who their MP is or who the Leader of the party is or who is or isnt in the party. They will vote for the word 'Labour' - We just need votes against the Cons.
 
1finny said:
Policies serve one purpose only - to persuade people to vote for you.
Leaders govern, including changing their mIndS, depending on how the land lies.

Once in power, depending on how the seats add up, you decide what you can/can’t do.
If you want to understand Starmer - look at what his views, on many things were, prior to him being in the running to lead the country.

Starmer is pro nationalisation, pro EU and pro decentralisation.
He’s also said he will abolish the House of Lords
Most of that is not ‘Tory’ thinking
Click to expand...

Deary me. Do you want to buy a bridge?
 
Muttley said:
or you can fret over the lack of socialist purity in the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO: come off it. The ideological purity stuff was ridiculous years ago. It's beyond that now after Starmers purges. There's only one faction of Labour that demands complete obsequience and it isn't the socialists.
 
bumface said:
If people had actually bothered to read the manifesto and listened to Corbyn speak there would have been no 'fear factor'. The media destroyed him and he had half of his own party doing everything they could to sabotage the election and a gullible electorate lapped up all of the lies and the smears.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your view of it. Corbyn pulled in a massive Labour vote in 2017 and turned a 20% poll deficit round in 5 weeks. He couldn’t have done that if he was being sabotaged.

The problem was that the media managed to stimulate the fear factor in the natural Tory vote so the dreadful May also pulled in a massive vote to stop Corbyn winning.

The average 70 year old Tory voter is far from gullible, they know exactly when they need to turn out to keep their rosette pinned on their donkey.

2019 was the Brexit election whether we like it or not. And the 70 year olds did their thing again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top