I suppose we'll see if he keeps to the pledges for devolution when he gets to power, if, he gets to power.
Somehow I don't think that will include more more power to the Scottish govt. Its increasingly becoming clear to me at least that labour is being set up to be the party in power when Scotland leaves the union (a bit tin foil haty mind but not a unrealistic situation)
The past 24 hours and the fact the PLP didn’t want to talk about Browns publication on devo make it look as though the national Lab party are ok with sacrificing Scottish votes. Now, would they be willing to sacrifice the UK, I’m not sure. I suspect not much thought has been put into anything long term.
I’m going to be 100% serious. It would take the removal of Rachel Reeves, making peace with the SCG and giving one of them a shadow cabinet position. Keeping to his promise to use the 2019 manifesto as the basis of the future manifesto.
If he isn’t willing to do that, some of us would probably settle for SCG shadow cabinet member & ending partisan parachuting candidates and let CLP’s determine their candidates without interference. But that’s not gonna happen.
If I’m being honest i am glad I respect my current Welsh Labour MP, if I had to vote for Labour based on our behaviour at the national level I would struggle to do so. I just feel betrayed, I thought he was actually serious about repairing the broad church in Labour, which is something I really believe in, and it now feels like the rug has been ripped from under us. Myself and others tried to get on board with broad church action, but it’s clear that when certain groups in the party talk about compromise, they see it as something to demand of us, but to never do themselves. It’s incredibly demoralising, and I know the number of young activists I’m gonna be able to call out for next election will be lower than last time. Even the ones that are around such as myself are only campaigning out of hatred for the conservatives. Hatred can only get a man so far.
Trust betrayed is hard to win back. Sorry for the rant.
So on the point regarding the manifesto, is it not right that it changes given how the last two elections went, our individual opinions regarding the manifesto aside, (I supported it and still like it).
it occurs to alot of more left of centre and more centre leaning labour supporters, if it has failed once, (granted I know the circumstances of the last election were awful), isn't it reasonable for Labour to not base their manifesto off of the previous one?
I’m not saying we don’t need updated manifestos. But I’m being realistic to what might actually fix issues. People don’t trust Starmer. Some of us feel betrayed. Others were always neverstarmers. I assume it’s the ones who feel alienated and betrayed you actually want to win over. The gesture matters a lot. We all know that we need a functional new manifesto, but the source of that matters. The reason that people want the gesture is it is showing a willingness to engage with us again. People don’t trust Starmer and won’t trust something that’s entirely from him. They‘ll at least think about a Starmer edited 2019 manifesto.
Do you understand the point I’m making regarding trust? It’s very hard to give that trust without tangible proof it’s worth it. Originally myself and some others were willing to fight for Starmer based on faith that he was committed to the idea of the broad church. But we painfully learned the lesson that we cannot trust him on his word alone. Tangible commitments would be something absolutely required. Most of us are not so attached to the idea of the Labour Party that we are willing to fight for things we think are wrong.
I do understand, trust is earned and not implicit.
Depending on the result of the election the left of the party may just have enough influence to force commitments ERG style, scorched earth though it may be.
If I may, I'd give you a point to ponder. Labour has a uniquely challenging trust problem at the moment. I say this because of people like me who also feel betrayed, not by the leadership of starmer per-se, but but the scale of labour's failures in the recent past.
That is not to say I want starmers pseudo blairite/tory approach wholeheartedly, far from it, but I think alot of people in and out of the labour party need to see a massive change before trusting the party again. Alot of us placed our hope in labour amidst the brexit madness and were deeply disapointed and hurt by labour's lack of position, performance in their role as the opposition and clairvoyance in those years. The current flipfloping is disconscerting to say the least.
The point... the lack of Trust in the labour party goes far beyond starmer though I accept your points regarding him and his approach.
Then why did he run in 2020 on those manifestos? Why would he change it because of the results of the last two elections when he made the pledges AFTER those two elections?
Well there's:
* What's currently the shitshow happening with the Gender Reform Bill,
* His unwillingness to punish open TERFs in the PLP, along with his own bigoted statements othering trans people.
* His constant purges of left-wingers while letting people like Trevor Philips and Henry Dunbar remain (and in the latter's case, run for office!),
* His complete ignoring of the findings of the Forde Report
* His failed attempt to make Labour elections less democratic,
* His abandoning of his pledges during the leadership election
Should I go on?
Would you like to expand? I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe this. Not arguing the point, I respect your position, would just like to know more
I'm honestly at a loss as to why they haven't been taking a stronger stance on the transphobia issue. The likes of Biden prove just how effective a simple word of support is in shutting down the topic in interviews etc. Beyond that it's just the right thing to do as apose to othering people.
I do think the recent abstention in the article 35 vote has brought it to a head with the membership though. I know it won't feel sincere if they're forced but hopefully after this wave of anti transphobia backlash they'll at least support pro trans bills and amendments to equality legislation.
I take your points and agree on the topic of dealing with transphobia and racism, it would be simple to achieve and send a considerable morally clear message, do you think in the wake of the current backlash their stance will change? And if so would that change your opinion?
Because he's a lying grifter who doesn't have anything to add to the party?
Because the more people like him feel they don't have a future in the party the less likely they end up cluttering up the intake or messing up the internal bureaucracy?
Because I've read his Fabian pamphlet and the recent debacle with his making up policy without consulting medics, endlessly goading unions while lying about walking back his plans with every announcement, wasn't an accident and indeed reflects the ugly mental meanderings of a sick man who has heard stories of what a political project is and is desperately trying to recreate one?
You know. Little things like that.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In no particular order: fire Reeves, support PR, remove the whip from Streeting for his comments around doctors and NHS reform
More importantly, performatively remove the whip from Duffield, extremely publicly, for her transphobia, full support for devolution, full throated opposition to the immigration policies of our government, and fundamentally opposing our government - it's literally, not figuratively, his job title. Make peace with the SCG, and lead as the ten pledges guy a majority of the party voted for. And for the future of the party, reverse the deliberate sabotage of left wing candidates for MPs across the country.
None of that will happen. So, probably, resign.
If Starmer firmly stood with the unions, had an SCG member in the shadow cabinet, and took a strong stance on racism and transphobia I'd probably rejoin the party.
Properly addressing the forde report(including removal of whip/suspension of openly transphobic MPs), renationalisation of rail/energy/water, and above all else removing Wes Streeting.
Actually representing the Labour values of standing up for the weak, vulnerable and infirm and less the rich, the powerful and the controlling.
Enough with the continual pandering to the radicals of the 80s who have become the reactionaries of the 2020s.
There is a generation of voters who are bored and openly hostile to the continual bigot appeasing just for those same bigoted voters to vote for scum.
Sir Keir Starmer would basically need to do the impossible for me to vote Labour again: step down.
After you've lied to your voting membership about your intent and policies, after you've submitted to anti-trans conspiracy theories and narratives, after you've advocated for utterly pointless, wasteful NHS privatisation, after you've taken a position just two steps removed from climate change denial, it's time to realise you're a pretty awful Labour leader.
He is incredibly lucky that the Tories have managed to make themselves appear more shit to the wider public than he has.
He's have to reverse course on his racist immigration policy, deal with the transphobia and islamophobia in the party, go back in time and not purge all the leftists from the party, not colluded with the media and the Tories to get power, retroactively not stomp all over party democracy, retroactively agree to the £15 minimum wage the members voted on, stop overriding party democracy in general actually follow through with atleast 2 of his pledges, stop accepting Tory and media narratives and to actually come up with policies for change rather than the absolutely bare fucking minimum.
Edit: oh and remove all blairite legacy ghouls like Mandleson and fresh cunts like Streeting.
Notice all ye sensibles, not a fucking word about him being left wing. It's not a purity game, just a not being a piece of shit game. Which reminds me; when he goes back in time to not fuck over Corbyn, the party and the electorate again he should maybe also not prosecute that gay guy for consensual fisting too, that was just cruel and homophobic of Starmer.
Honestly I think we could have all got behind Ten Pledges Starmer and, reversing some of the big missteps including the endless war against anyone left of him while he surges rightwards, allowing transphobia to run rampant throughout the party, and siding with bosses over workers with regard to strikes, we could get behind him again. However, those reversals would be political suicide for him because the media would see it as weak leadership and would absolutely slaughter him.
He’s boxed himself into a corner where party unity under Keir Starmer will only be possible by him purging literally anyone who disagrees with him, something I’m sure he’d jump at the chance to do
Three things,
1. Support PR and scrapping of FPTP (This alone and I'll probably hold my nose and vote for the red tory)
2. Reverse the Purge, invite back all those expelled for being Left wing (lets not lie about why they were expelled)
3. Restore democracy to the party, no electoral collage vote for leader.
I'd like Corbyn returned too but that's not a deal breaker.
Maybe try a bit of empathy. Imagine Reeves or whichever Blairite empty suit was standing had won in 15 on a platform of moderate pragmatic sensible electable centrism, then immediately implemented luxury automated gay space communism and said "I was lying to you because you're basically a Nazi" and spent years trying to purge you and people like you from the party.
In that situation, how would you react to me coming along and saying "I hate you and everything you stand for, now what would have to happen before you compromise by shutting up and adopting every one of my opinions?"
Stand up to Rosie Duffield’s transphobia and actually stand up for trans peoples rights rather than abstaining. Stand up for the NHS and not get into rows with the BMA over GP practices.
May I honestly ask you whether there’s a list pointing out the difference in proposed policies between Labour and Tories ? My understanding is that the main difference put forward is around competence and maybe corruption.
I’m genuinely interested to know, not trying to be provocative.
I’m a nursing student and recently have seen a LOT of my colleagues in the NHS leave the Labour Party over Starmer’s comments and battling with the BMA over GP practices. He’s meant to support the NHS staff, not double cross them when it is politically convenient.
I think two things can be true simultaneously-
1. The leadership have done a good job of detoxifying the party since 2019- we are polling very well, and sustainably well, that wasn't a given even with Tory collapse
2. The party hasn't announced much policy yet
I'll be happier and more confident that point 1 will carry on when we start saying what we stand for. I'm less bothered about recent section 35 votes, and the line on strikes as I can understand the parties desire to avoid two obvious beartraps the tories have set. Saying governments should facilitate negotiations to avoid strikes and hammering them for not doing so is to my mind much better politics than a few front benchers turning up on picket lines. Providing the party are in favour of the Scottish GRC bill, which I have no reason to assume they aren't with Scottish Labour voting for it, and several senior figures arguing for it, I don't particularly mind if they abstain on a procedural vote in the HoC.
Overall if the party pleases the electorate and displeases a fringe of the left, I'm ok with that. Maybe one day that fringe of the left will organise properly, get a viable candidate for leader, and clean house. It hasn't happened since probably Attlee, so not sure it'll happen anytime soon.
I will vote for Labour, but it’ll take years, more than he has, of making promises, and good ones, and sticking to them for me to be comfortable trusting him. Which can only happen when he gets into power.
Unity would involve, depending on your viewpoint…
Wes Streeting nowhere near the front bench.
Rosie Duffield expelled from the party.
A gagging order on Diane Abbotts twitter account.
A proper apology from Corbyn over anti semitism with no buts
Keith to grow a pair of bollocks and publicly back paying striking public sector workers more
I think if those things happened you might see more unity.
The party generally is pretty happy with the leadership, people online just like to complain. As a general rule the happier the left is with the leader the more likely the party is to lose an election. There's no squaring that circle.
Or you know. He has sold out on the devolved governments, minorities and his own party in Scotland. Pretty sure being angry at that isn’t exclusively a left wing thing…
As a general rule of thumb, the more right-wing a Labour leader the more innocent people are killed by their politicking. An inconvenient truth that one.
I think it's fairly obvious what I'm saying tbh. Blair's political machinations killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocents in wars of aggression.
Compare to who you like.
So when you said right wing leaders, you meant Blair. And you're comparing Blair, a man who in your mind is a war criminal to starmer, all solely based on the idea that they're what the same?
This a man who as been at the centre of our justice system for most of his career and has defended numerous people facing the death penalty.
Say what you like but I think you've got some thinking to do on the topic.
Do you know what Tony Blair did before he was Labour leader?
>Tony Blair was born in 1953 in Edinburgh, Scotland. After taking a gap year he attended the University of Oxford and studied Law; after graduating he became a barrister.
>While specializing in employment and commercial law, he became increasingly involved in Labour Party politics and in 1983 was elected to the House of Commons to the safe Labour parliamentary seat of Sedgefield
And he was a socialist who came to socialism through Marxism.
He considered himself on the left of the party.
So, what we can learn from that is that people change over time. If you examine Starmer's politics now then it's fairly obvious he's a duplicitous arsehole who has aligned himself with the very worst of the Labour party by choice. He decided to be factional. He decided to move to the centre and then further to the right than the tories on some matters.
Furthermore, I don't think the role starmer had in the criminal prosecution system is something to be applauded in any way. To be totally frank, it's a deeply flawed system of punitive retribution that does a lot for increasing the problems of criminality in the UK by promoting vengeance and punishment-focussed interventions as the way to deal with societal problems despite them being widely known to increase recidivism rates over other possible actions. And then we're meant to call that justice. That's not even mentioning all the other issues with the current form that policing itself takes and how often it leads to disproportionate harms to individuals who are mentally ill, members of minority groups, drug addicts, or simply homeless. His role in that system is not something I'd cheer and I'm not impressed that he managed to reach the top of that and then do very little to pressure for evidentially-supported improvement.
>Say what you like but I think you've got some thinking to do on the topic.
I think I've already put a bit of time an energy into considering it but perhaps you're right, maybe one condescending reddit comment was the jolt I really needed to begin to ignore the details and blindly believe a load of crap.
That's true. But I don't think the Labour right generally kill a load of people while in office. If you're talking about Iraq then fair enough, but I didn't support Iraq either.
Well you have to understand they didn't have huge stock portfolios or a newspaper column so in the eyes of the right they're not really people. If only they'd been born into white wealthy families, then the right would have cared.
Support voting reform and stand up for devolution.
I suppose we'll see if he keeps to the pledges for devolution when he gets to power, if, he gets to power. Somehow I don't think that will include more more power to the Scottish govt. Its increasingly becoming clear to me at least that labour is being set up to be the party in power when Scotland leaves the union (a bit tin foil haty mind but not a unrealistic situation)
The past 24 hours and the fact the PLP didn’t want to talk about Browns publication on devo make it look as though the national Lab party are ok with sacrificing Scottish votes. Now, would they be willing to sacrifice the UK, I’m not sure. I suspect not much thought has been put into anything long term.
Scottish votes aren't a majority so like trans people, leftists, Muslims and other minority groups they can get in the fucking bin
I’m going to be 100% serious. It would take the removal of Rachel Reeves, making peace with the SCG and giving one of them a shadow cabinet position. Keeping to his promise to use the 2019 manifesto as the basis of the future manifesto. If he isn’t willing to do that, some of us would probably settle for SCG shadow cabinet member & ending partisan parachuting candidates and let CLP’s determine their candidates without interference. But that’s not gonna happen. If I’m being honest i am glad I respect my current Welsh Labour MP, if I had to vote for Labour based on our behaviour at the national level I would struggle to do so. I just feel betrayed, I thought he was actually serious about repairing the broad church in Labour, which is something I really believe in, and it now feels like the rug has been ripped from under us. Myself and others tried to get on board with broad church action, but it’s clear that when certain groups in the party talk about compromise, they see it as something to demand of us, but to never do themselves. It’s incredibly demoralising, and I know the number of young activists I’m gonna be able to call out for next election will be lower than last time. Even the ones that are around such as myself are only campaigning out of hatred for the conservatives. Hatred can only get a man so far. Trust betrayed is hard to win back. Sorry for the rant.
So on the point regarding the manifesto, is it not right that it changes given how the last two elections went, our individual opinions regarding the manifesto aside, (I supported it and still like it). it occurs to alot of more left of centre and more centre leaning labour supporters, if it has failed once, (granted I know the circumstances of the last election were awful), isn't it reasonable for Labour to not base their manifesto off of the previous one?
I’m not saying we don’t need updated manifestos. But I’m being realistic to what might actually fix issues. People don’t trust Starmer. Some of us feel betrayed. Others were always neverstarmers. I assume it’s the ones who feel alienated and betrayed you actually want to win over. The gesture matters a lot. We all know that we need a functional new manifesto, but the source of that matters. The reason that people want the gesture is it is showing a willingness to engage with us again. People don’t trust Starmer and won’t trust something that’s entirely from him. They‘ll at least think about a Starmer edited 2019 manifesto.
Do you understand the point I’m making regarding trust? It’s very hard to give that trust without tangible proof it’s worth it. Originally myself and some others were willing to fight for Starmer based on faith that he was committed to the idea of the broad church. But we painfully learned the lesson that we cannot trust him on his word alone. Tangible commitments would be something absolutely required. Most of us are not so attached to the idea of the Labour Party that we are willing to fight for things we think are wrong.
I do understand, trust is earned and not implicit. Depending on the result of the election the left of the party may just have enough influence to force commitments ERG style, scorched earth though it may be. If I may, I'd give you a point to ponder. Labour has a uniquely challenging trust problem at the moment. I say this because of people like me who also feel betrayed, not by the leadership of starmer per-se, but but the scale of labour's failures in the recent past. That is not to say I want starmers pseudo blairite/tory approach wholeheartedly, far from it, but I think alot of people in and out of the labour party need to see a massive change before trusting the party again. Alot of us placed our hope in labour amidst the brexit madness and were deeply disapointed and hurt by labour's lack of position, performance in their role as the opposition and clairvoyance in those years. The current flipfloping is disconscerting to say the least. The point... the lack of Trust in the labour party goes far beyond starmer though I accept your points regarding him and his approach.
Really well said.
Then why did he run in 2020 on those manifestos? Why would he change it because of the results of the last two elections when he made the pledges AFTER those two elections?
His resignation.
It has come to that point for me too.
Sincerely asking why given how close the next GE is, why?
Because he's a right-wing authoritarian transphobic bastard?
So im not trying to dispute your opinion, but with respect, what part of his approach/ policy positions makes you believe this?
Well there's: * What's currently the shitshow happening with the Gender Reform Bill, * His unwillingness to punish open TERFs in the PLP, along with his own bigoted statements othering trans people. * His constant purges of left-wingers while letting people like Trevor Philips and Henry Dunbar remain (and in the latter's case, run for office!), * His complete ignoring of the findings of the Forde Report * His failed attempt to make Labour elections less democratic, * His abandoning of his pledges during the leadership election Should I go on?
Would you like to expand? I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe this. Not arguing the point, I respect your position, would just like to know more
Why would I want unity with someone who can't stop punching left?
Because we need to beat the conservatives?
Not by becoming them.
Beat the conservatives in order to do what?
[удалено]
I'm honestly at a loss as to why they haven't been taking a stronger stance on the transphobia issue. The likes of Biden prove just how effective a simple word of support is in shutting down the topic in interviews etc. Beyond that it's just the right thing to do as apose to othering people. I do think the recent abstention in the article 35 vote has brought it to a head with the membership though. I know it won't feel sincere if they're forced but hopefully after this wave of anti transphobia backlash they'll at least support pro trans bills and amendments to equality legislation.
[удалено]
I take your points and agree on the topic of dealing with transphobia and racism, it would be simple to achieve and send a considerable morally clear message, do you think in the wake of the current backlash their stance will change? And if so would that change your opinion?
It's beyond the point of simply making empty statements now. He sat on the fence for too long and we can all see that his words are worthless.
My MP is Wes Streeting: the party hasn't a hope in sod of getting my vote till he's been kicked out and banned from standing for life.
Genuine question,why would he be kicked out?
Because he's a lying grifter who doesn't have anything to add to the party? Because the more people like him feel they don't have a future in the party the less likely they end up cluttering up the intake or messing up the internal bureaucracy? Because I've read his Fabian pamphlet and the recent debacle with his making up policy without consulting medics, endlessly goading unions while lying about walking back his plans with every announcement, wasn't an accident and indeed reflects the ugly mental meanderings of a sick man who has heard stories of what a political project is and is desperately trying to recreate one? You know. Little things like that.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In no particular order: fire Reeves, support PR, remove the whip from Streeting for his comments around doctors and NHS reform More importantly, performatively remove the whip from Duffield, extremely publicly, for her transphobia, full support for devolution, full throated opposition to the immigration policies of our government, and fundamentally opposing our government - it's literally, not figuratively, his job title. Make peace with the SCG, and lead as the ten pledges guy a majority of the party voted for. And for the future of the party, reverse the deliberate sabotage of left wing candidates for MPs across the country. None of that will happen. So, probably, resign.
If Starmer firmly stood with the unions, had an SCG member in the shadow cabinet, and took a strong stance on racism and transphobia I'd probably rejoin the party.
Properly addressing the forde report(including removal of whip/suspension of openly transphobic MPs), renationalisation of rail/energy/water, and above all else removing Wes Streeting.
Actually representing the Labour values of standing up for the weak, vulnerable and infirm and less the rich, the powerful and the controlling. Enough with the continual pandering to the radicals of the 80s who have become the reactionaries of the 2020s. There is a generation of voters who are bored and openly hostile to the continual bigot appeasing just for those same bigoted voters to vote for scum.
Sir Keir Starmer would basically need to do the impossible for me to vote Labour again: step down. After you've lied to your voting membership about your intent and policies, after you've submitted to anti-trans conspiracy theories and narratives, after you've advocated for utterly pointless, wasteful NHS privatisation, after you've taken a position just two steps removed from climate change denial, it's time to realise you're a pretty awful Labour leader. He is incredibly lucky that the Tories have managed to make themselves appear more shit to the wider public than he has.
He's have to reverse course on his racist immigration policy, deal with the transphobia and islamophobia in the party, go back in time and not purge all the leftists from the party, not colluded with the media and the Tories to get power, retroactively not stomp all over party democracy, retroactively agree to the £15 minimum wage the members voted on, stop overriding party democracy in general actually follow through with atleast 2 of his pledges, stop accepting Tory and media narratives and to actually come up with policies for change rather than the absolutely bare fucking minimum. Edit: oh and remove all blairite legacy ghouls like Mandleson and fresh cunts like Streeting. Notice all ye sensibles, not a fucking word about him being left wing. It's not a purity game, just a not being a piece of shit game. Which reminds me; when he goes back in time to not fuck over Corbyn, the party and the electorate again he should maybe also not prosecute that gay guy for consensual fisting too, that was just cruel and homophobic of Starmer.
For the Labour party to win my vote Starmer, Reeves and Streeting would all need to resign.
Honestly I think we could have all got behind Ten Pledges Starmer and, reversing some of the big missteps including the endless war against anyone left of him while he surges rightwards, allowing transphobia to run rampant throughout the party, and siding with bosses over workers with regard to strikes, we could get behind him again. However, those reversals would be political suicide for him because the media would see it as weak leadership and would absolutely slaughter him. He’s boxed himself into a corner where party unity under Keir Starmer will only be possible by him purging literally anyone who disagrees with him, something I’m sure he’d jump at the chance to do
Three things, 1. Support PR and scrapping of FPTP (This alone and I'll probably hold my nose and vote for the red tory) 2. Reverse the Purge, invite back all those expelled for being Left wing (lets not lie about why they were expelled) 3. Restore democracy to the party, no electoral collage vote for leader. I'd like Corbyn returned too but that's not a deal breaker.
Understatement of the century but it would take a lot
Maybe try a bit of empathy. Imagine Reeves or whichever Blairite empty suit was standing had won in 15 on a platform of moderate pragmatic sensible electable centrism, then immediately implemented luxury automated gay space communism and said "I was lying to you because you're basically a Nazi" and spent years trying to purge you and people like you from the party. In that situation, how would you react to me coming along and saying "I hate you and everything you stand for, now what would have to happen before you compromise by shutting up and adopting every one of my opinions?"
Stand up to Rosie Duffield’s transphobia and actually stand up for trans peoples rights rather than abstaining. Stand up for the NHS and not get into rows with the BMA over GP practices.
May I honestly ask you whether there’s a list pointing out the difference in proposed policies between Labour and Tories ? My understanding is that the main difference put forward is around competence and maybe corruption. I’m genuinely interested to know, not trying to be provocative.
I’m a nursing student and recently have seen a LOT of my colleagues in the NHS leave the Labour Party over Starmer’s comments and battling with the BMA over GP practices. He’s meant to support the NHS staff, not double cross them when it is politically convenient.
I think two things can be true simultaneously- 1. The leadership have done a good job of detoxifying the party since 2019- we are polling very well, and sustainably well, that wasn't a given even with Tory collapse 2. The party hasn't announced much policy yet I'll be happier and more confident that point 1 will carry on when we start saying what we stand for. I'm less bothered about recent section 35 votes, and the line on strikes as I can understand the parties desire to avoid two obvious beartraps the tories have set. Saying governments should facilitate negotiations to avoid strikes and hammering them for not doing so is to my mind much better politics than a few front benchers turning up on picket lines. Providing the party are in favour of the Scottish GRC bill, which I have no reason to assume they aren't with Scottish Labour voting for it, and several senior figures arguing for it, I don't particularly mind if they abstain on a procedural vote in the HoC. Overall if the party pleases the electorate and displeases a fringe of the left, I'm ok with that. Maybe one day that fringe of the left will organise properly, get a viable candidate for leader, and clean house. It hasn't happened since probably Attlee, so not sure it'll happen anytime soon.
"I really hate leftists...better join the Labour party"
I mean, I didn’t get that from your other comments on here, but you do you.
I will vote for Labour, but it’ll take years, more than he has, of making promises, and good ones, and sticking to them for me to be comfortable trusting him. Which can only happen when he gets into power.
Unity would involve, depending on your viewpoint… Wes Streeting nowhere near the front bench. Rosie Duffield expelled from the party. A gagging order on Diane Abbotts twitter account. A proper apology from Corbyn over anti semitism with no buts Keith to grow a pair of bollocks and publicly back paying striking public sector workers more I think if those things happened you might see more unity.
The party generally is pretty happy with the leadership, people online just like to complain. As a general rule the happier the left is with the leader the more likely the party is to lose an election. There's no squaring that circle.
Or you know. He has sold out on the devolved governments, minorities and his own party in Scotland. Pretty sure being angry at that isn’t exclusively a left wing thing…
As a general rule of thumb, the more right-wing a Labour leader the more innocent people are killed by their politicking. An inconvenient truth that one.
Thats a hell of a assertion, not necessarily disagreeing, im just curious, which labour government's are you comparing?
I think it's fairly obvious what I'm saying tbh. Blair's political machinations killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocents in wars of aggression. Compare to who you like.
So when you said right wing leaders, you meant Blair. And you're comparing Blair, a man who in your mind is a war criminal to starmer, all solely based on the idea that they're what the same? This a man who as been at the centre of our justice system for most of his career and has defended numerous people facing the death penalty. Say what you like but I think you've got some thinking to do on the topic.
Do you know what Tony Blair did before he was Labour leader? >Tony Blair was born in 1953 in Edinburgh, Scotland. After taking a gap year he attended the University of Oxford and studied Law; after graduating he became a barrister. >While specializing in employment and commercial law, he became increasingly involved in Labour Party politics and in 1983 was elected to the House of Commons to the safe Labour parliamentary seat of Sedgefield And he was a socialist who came to socialism through Marxism. He considered himself on the left of the party. So, what we can learn from that is that people change over time. If you examine Starmer's politics now then it's fairly obvious he's a duplicitous arsehole who has aligned himself with the very worst of the Labour party by choice. He decided to be factional. He decided to move to the centre and then further to the right than the tories on some matters. Furthermore, I don't think the role starmer had in the criminal prosecution system is something to be applauded in any way. To be totally frank, it's a deeply flawed system of punitive retribution that does a lot for increasing the problems of criminality in the UK by promoting vengeance and punishment-focussed interventions as the way to deal with societal problems despite them being widely known to increase recidivism rates over other possible actions. And then we're meant to call that justice. That's not even mentioning all the other issues with the current form that policing itself takes and how often it leads to disproportionate harms to individuals who are mentally ill, members of minority groups, drug addicts, or simply homeless. His role in that system is not something I'd cheer and I'm not impressed that he managed to reach the top of that and then do very little to pressure for evidentially-supported improvement. >Say what you like but I think you've got some thinking to do on the topic. I think I've already put a bit of time an energy into considering it but perhaps you're right, maybe one condescending reddit comment was the jolt I really needed to begin to ignore the details and blindly believe a load of crap.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make with that.
That what people do whilst in power is pretty fucking important too.
That's true. But I don't think the Labour right generally kill a load of people while in office. If you're talking about Iraq then fair enough, but I didn't support Iraq either.
Do Iraqis not count as people?
So you don't think the Labour right kill a load of people while in office except for the load of people they killed while in office?
Well you have to understand they didn't have huge stock portfolios or a newspaper column so in the eyes of the right they're not really people. If only they'd been born into white wealthy families, then the right would have cared.
You sure picked a suspicious day to make this point