Tories close gap on Labour to 1 point

For goodness sake. I've asked the two of you simple, simple questions. Why not just answer them.

Lefty, why is it good that Starmer misrepresented himself in the leadership election? Why not just be honest about his agenda at that point?

ST, why doesn't Starmer kicking MPs out of the party count as infighting? It seems like it would be exactly that.
 
Lefty said:
Weird?

Last time you were complaining I didn’t go off on exactly the same type of detour pointing the disgraceful behaviour of the Labour Right towards Corbyn. That confirmed for you that my criticisms of Corbyn and his team must have all been down to a bias I’d always had rather than the plain as the nose on my face facts that everyone else could see by 2019 - the sheer incompetence. Isn’t it time you acknowledged it’s actually your own bias preventing you from seeing some things as they were?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood any of what I was saying to you the other day. You made some comment that the Labour left can't compromise. The implication being that the Labour right can. I was pointing out what nonsense that was.

The trouble often is Lefty you've got these set lines you love to repeat. So you don't pay any attention to anything said on a thread. You just fly straight off in to your Vicky Pollard "the Labour right were wrong but right but wrong but right" routine.
 
SuperStu said:
For goodness sake. I've asked the two of you simple, simple questions. Why not just answer them.

Lefty, why is it good that Starmer misrepresented himself in the leadership election? Why not just be honest about his agenda at that point?

ST, why doesn't Starmer kicking MPs out of the party count as infighting? It seems like it would be exactly that.
Click to expand...
That's not infighting. The way I can see it he's getting rid of people who think like you. People who, for whatever reason, want to hold the party down and benefit the Tories. I don't know why you'd want to do that but here we are. It stands to reason that if there are people within the party who would rather attack their own party and see the Tories in power they need to be removed. Starmer main aim should surely be to get the party elected? And surely getting rid of people who'd stop that would be a priority ?
 
SmallTown said:
That's not infighting. The way I can see it he's getting rid of people who think like you. People who, for whatever reason, want to hold the party down and benefit the Tories. I don't know why you'd want to do that but here we are. It stands to reason that if there are people within the party who would rather attack their own party and see the Tories in power they need to be removed. Starmer main aim should surely be to get the party elected? And surely getting rid of people who'd stop that would be a priority ?
Click to expand...

Right. So exactly as I said then. It's not infighting so long as the wing of the party you like are doing it. (y) Fair play to you ST at least you've (eventually) been honest there. And I'll be honest I don't totally disagree with that point of view. If only the left of the party had put up a bit of a fight when they had the chance.
 
SmallTown said:
That's not infighting. The way I can see it he's getting rid of people who think like you. People who, for whatever reason, want to hold the party down and benefit the Tories. I don't know why you'd want to do that but here we are. It stands to reason that if there are people within the party who would rather attack their own party and see the Tories in power they need to be removed. Starmer main aim should surely be to get the party elected? And surely getting rid of people who'd stop that would be a priority ?
Click to expand...
What on earth have I just read?
 
SuperStu said:
Lefty, why is it good that Starmer misrepresented himself in the leadership election? Why not just be honest about his agenda at that point?

ST, why doesn't Starmer kicking MPs out of the party count as infighting? It seems like it would be exactly that.
Click to expand...

I don't consider that he has misrepresented anything.

I think he has so far not revealed very much about policy and I think that is smart. I'm not going to criticise him for not tipping his hand early. I'm not going to criticise him for not waiting to see what the economic situation is nearer the election, nor the mood of the country.

The expulsions were necessary and the expelled brought them on themselves. They have helped Labour go from a 20pt deficit to a 5-6pt lead in the polls, they have led to the Jewish community believing that Labour is a welcoming safe place when they had lost that confidence.

It might have been harsh on some, he might have made some mistakes, but he is new as an MP let alone a Leader. He gets cut some slack for that, for the situation inherited and for the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.

I'd like to think that the Left who have been expelled were being very smart and taking one for the team to allow Starmer to appear to have acted decisively and change public perception. I'll doff my cap if so. Well played. I suspect though that it was just more stupid incompetence.

The Far Left : Starmer is a disgrace for not having announced his policies!

Also the Far Left : We can tell Starmer is a Tory from the policies he has announced
 
Lefty said:
I don't consider that he has misrepresented anything.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Lefty he has. On multiple policies.

Before the leadership election he pledged to increase corporation taxes, afterwards he whipped the party to vote against such increases. Before the leadership election he pledged to defend the NHS, recently his right hand man Streeting says privatisation will continue. Before the leadership election he pledged to put the environment "at the heart of everything we do" and to promote human rights, now he wants climate activists put in prison. Before the leadership election he supported nationalising energy, now he goes on Marr and says no way. Before the leadership election he pledged to support workers rights and trade unions, last year he whipped the party to abstain on spy cops in unions. He pledged to unite the party and spends his first two years expelling members and gerrymandering the leadership election rules. He pledged effective opposition to the tories in parliament and a few weeks ago his lords didn't bother turning up to vote against the elections bill.

Come on Lefty, lets be honest, there's a world of difference between how Starmer has acted as leader and what he presented himself as in his leadership campaign. You're perfectly entitled to be happy with him as leader and like the above list but realistically you can't tell me nothing changed before and after he was confirmed in his post.
 
SuperStu said:
I'm sorry Lefty he has. On multiple policies.

Before the leadership election he pledged to increase corporation taxes, afterwards he whipped the party to vote against such increases. Before the leadership election he pledged to defend the NHS, recently his right hand man Streeting says privatisation will continue. Before the leadership election he pledged to put the environment "at the heart of everything we do" and to promote human rights, now he wants climate activists put in prison. Before the leadership election he supported nationalising energy, now he goes on Marr and says no way. Before the leadership election he pledged to support workers rights and trade unions, last year he whipped the party to abstain on spy cops in unions. He pledged to unite the party and spends his first two years expelling members and gerrymandering the leadership election rules. He pledged effective opposition to the tories in parliament and a few weeks ago his lords didn't bother turning up to vote against the elections bill.

Come on Lefty, lets be honest, there's a world of difference between how Starmer has acted as leader and what he presented himself as in his leadership campaign. You're perfectly entitled to be happy with him as leader and like the above list but realistically you can't tell me nothing changed before and after he was confirmed in his post.
Click to expand...
The problem you have is that none of that matters to the vast majority of the population. Don't you envy the Tories even a little bit that they will do whatever it takes to stay in power?

Each part of the movement is to blame and if you're shocked that a politician seeking to be elected doesn't follow through on all the pledges made during the campaign, then you should probably give up.
 
SuperStu said:
I'm sorry Lefty he has. On multiple policies.

Before the leadership election he pledged to increase corporation taxes, afterwards he whipped the party to vote against such increases. Before the leadership election he pledged to defend the NHS, recently his right hand man Streeting says privatisation will continue. Before the leadership election he pledged to put the environment "at the heart of everything we do" and to promote human rights, now he wants climate activists put in prison. Before the leadership election he supported nationalising energy, now he goes on Marr and says no way. Before the leadership election he pledged to support workers rights and trade unions, last year he whipped the party to abstain on spy cops in unions. He pledged to unite the party and spends his first two years expelling members and gerrymandering the leadership election rules. He pledged effective opposition to the tories in parliament and a few weeks ago his lords didn't bother turning up to vote against the elections bill.

Come on Lefty, lets be honest, there's a world of difference between how Starmer has acted as leader and what he presented himself as in his leadership campaign. You're perfectly entitled to be happy with him as leader and like the above list but realistically you can't tell me nothing changed before and after he was confirmed in his post.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your analysis but in any case he said two very important things.

1. Nothing is ruled in or out.
2. He will choose pragmatism over ideology.

He is absolutely correct.

'Before the leadership election he supported nationalising energy, now he goes on Marr and says no way'

No he didn't. The statement Marr read out, as Starmer pointed out, made no mention of nationalisation. He further went on to say, very pragmatically, very sensibly, his priority during the current crisis was that he would do nothing to put a further burden and difficulties on the ordinary taxpayer, which is what privatising the big six energy companies would almost certainly do. He has said that where and when these companies in the various sectors fail the consumer, he would act.

Let's see what happens. He is basically giving them fair warning.

The only ideologies we should be glued to are pragmatism and empiricism.

Both Left and Right have ideologies that work in some scenario's and fail miserably in others.
 
Unravel_Morrison said:
if you're shocked that a politician seeking to be elected doesn't follow through on all the pledges made during the campaign, then you should
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe myself as "shocked" about the direction the Labour party have gone. The left having a bit of a say was the exception, not the rule. It'll probably be another 30 years before someone who's a socialist gets another chance.

I do think it's more unusual than it might instinctively feel for a candidate to very quickly completely reverse all of their pledges after winning. They usually try to keep at least a semblance of some of what they said going.
 
Lefty said:
No he didn't. The statement Marr read out, as Starmer pointed out, made no mention of nationalisation.
Click to expand...

It's nitpicking. And besides there's this clip, so he clearly did want to be perceived as in favour of nationalisation at the time:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1523895915647541248

Lefty said:
Let's see what happens. He is basically giving them fair warning.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right! But for now it's make believe. Like the progressive pact stuff, like the proportional representation stuff. If you just imagine he's secretly planning to do everything you want him to do of course he seems fantastic - a bit like when Balogun was on the bench! 🤣
 
SuperStu said:
I'm sorry Lefty he has. On multiple policies.

Before the leadership election he pledged to increase corporation taxes, afterwards he whipped the party to vote against such increases. Before the leadership election he pledged to defend the NHS, recently his right hand man Streeting says privatisation will continue. Before the leadership election he pledged to put the environment "at the heart of everything we do" and to promote human rights, now he wants climate activists put in prison. Before the leadership election he supported nationalising energy, now he goes on Marr and says no way. Before the leadership election he pledged to support workers rights and trade unions, last year he whipped the party to abstain on spy cops in unions. He pledged to unite the party and spends his first two years expelling members and gerrymandering the leadership election rules. He pledged effective opposition to the tories in parliament and a few weeks ago his lords didn't bother turning up to vote against the elections bill.

Come on Lefty, lets be honest, there's a world of difference between how Starmer has acted as leader and what he presented himself as in his leadership campaign. You're perfectly entitled to be happy with him as leader and like the above list but realistically you can't tell me nothing changed before and after he was confirmed in his post.
Click to expand...
Can someone explain to me how increasing Corporation Tax will add one penny to the Treasury? The head office will move to Dublin. Until there is an international level of CT any local decision is pointless.

The NHS has always since its inception been privatised, Consultants are self employed, they buy all their consumable products from private companies, unless they employ bricklayers the building are built by Costain.

The Trade Unions represent about 20% of the workforce, after self employed.

You live in the past, Corbyn did not understand the word loyalty, he had no political common sense.
 
SuperStu said:
It's nitpicking. And besides there's this clip, so he clearly did want to be perceived as in favour of nationalisation at the time:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1523895915647541248



I hope you're right! But for now it's make believe. Like the progressive pact stuff, like the proportional representation stuff. If you just imagine he's secretly planning to do everything you want him to do of course he seems fantastic - a bit like when Balogun was on the bench! 🤣
Click to expand...

This shows the point people are making... A Twitter page entitled 'Tory Fibs' which you would believe is there to highlight the lies of the Tories spends most of it's recent time attacking Labour :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
MolteniArcore said:
This shows the point people are making... A Twitter page entitled 'Tory Fibs' which you would believe is there to highlight the lies of the Tories spends most of it's recent time attacking Labour :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

;) I suppose they'd say they're not attacking Labour, just the fibbing tory bloke who happens to lead them.

In any case I'm sure that clip is available elsewhere, I just used that link as I'd seen the twitter thread recently. It doesn't particularly matter who's tweet it's embedded in.

The point is Starmer was for nationalisation, now he's not. You can support that and think he's going in the right direction, or not, but either way it's undeniably a change, isn't it?
 
MolteniArcore said:
This shows the point people are making... A Twitter page entitled 'Tory Fibs' which you would believe is there to highlight the lies of the Tories spends most of it's recent time attacking Labour :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Yeah, bit of a slam dunk that isn't it? Even a page seemingly set up to attack the Tories is helping them by undermining labour.

The shocking thing is, people like grunty and stu actually can't see that they are enabling the Tories. Despite the fact history has shown us that if a party infights it benefits other parties, the seem completely oblivious to it. It is surprising to me that they can't grasp this simple concept
 
MolteniArcore said:
They can say what they want, but the result is them putting people off voting for Labour. And that has the result of keeping the Tories in power.
Click to expand...
I think we are wasting our time: This logic is extremely clear and obvious and also backed up by historic voting patterns. The simply can't seem to see it. Maybe it doesn't sit will with them that they are helping out the Tories? I guess not, but they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top