|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 9:19:55 GMT
Good news all round I'd say. First, the focus on grassroots unionism is absolutely right. Second, a weakening of the link to the Unions, always portrayed as "control" by the Unions by the right-wing media, will reduce the ability of the press to attack that. Third, it'll probably result in other donors taking their place (not that political donations should be allowed) and increase their "middle ground" electability. Think Starmer will be ok with this all round. The money coming in from unions and members will be replaced by donations from big businesses and lobbyists. Hedge fund managers, The British Israel and Communcations Centre, they're all there to see. Of course Starmer will be ok with it, it's the direction he wants to take the party. And as I've said previously Starmer doesn't need to worry about being attacked by the press at the moment, they're happy to sit tight and wait to see whether they will hammer him or back him down the line......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 9:21:36 GMT
Looking at the polls Labour are beating the Tories, and Starmer is seen as better Prime Minister material than Johnson. Over on the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, yesterday they had #StarmerOut trending, and today it's #ResignStarmer. Depends which polls you look at, some have both parties level pegging and others a narrow lead for one party or the other......
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 7, 2020 10:46:03 GMT
Good news all round I'd say. First, the focus on grassroots unionism is absolutely right. Second, a weakening of the link to the Unions, always portrayed as "control" by the Unions by the right-wing media, will reduce the ability of the press to attack that. Third, it'll probably result in other donors taking their place (not that political donations should be allowed) and increase their "middle ground" electability. Think Starmer will be ok with this all round. The money coming in from unions and members will be replaced by donations from big businesses and lobbyists. Hedge fund managers, The British Israel and Communcations Centre, they're all there to see. Of course Starmer will be ok with it, it's the direction he wants to take the party. And as I've said previously Starmer doesn't need to worry about being attacked by the press at the moment, they're happy to sit tight and wait to see whether they will hammer him or back him down the line...... I'm sure you're right and, as I've said, none of this stuff should be legal. But, again, it comes down to a choice around pragmatism in my view. In my opinion, I'd rather have a competent PM and a party in power which provides more of the policies which I believe to be of benefit to more of the people of the country more of the time and able to put those policies into legislation and practice, than someone who will never get the chance to put any policies into practice. Does that mean I think Starmer and the Labour Party he is trying to shape will be the perfect answer to everything? No. Just like every government we have ever had, if Starmer's Labour ever get there they will do some good things and some not so good. Hopefully, more good than not so good. Everyone hopes that that is the case with every government, but as the current crop in power are demonstrating on a daily basis, some are spectacularly incompetent. Your view will probably be different, and that's entirely fine. We'll have to agree to disagree
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 7, 2020 12:40:07 GMT
Unite took particular offence to their money being used to arbitrarily pay off the Panorama 'whitleblowers'.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 7, 2020 13:40:40 GMT
Looking at the polls Labour are beating the Tories, and Starmer is seen as better Prime Minister material than Johnson. Over on the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, yesterday they had #StarmerOut trending, and today it's #ResignStarmer. It's almost as though some of them don't want to be in power but would rather snipe on the sidelines- it's easier that way, less pressure to perform.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Oct 7, 2020 16:54:05 GMT
Looking at the polls Labour are beating the Tories, and Starmer is seen as better Prime Minister material than Johnson. Over on the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, yesterday they had #StarmerOut trending, and today it's #ResignStarmer. Starmer leading in the Polls Far right politcal parties going on trial in Greece Trump about to be walloped in the Presidential Election Green Bay Packers 4 and 0 Stoke in the Championship Almost feels like normality is returning.
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Oct 7, 2020 16:58:57 GMT
Looking at the polls Labour are beating the Tories, and Starmer is seen as better Prime Minister material than Johnson. Over on the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, yesterday they had #StarmerOut trending, and today it's #ResignStarmer. It's almost as though some of them don't want to be in power but would rather snipe on the sidelines- it's easier that way, less pressure to perform. The same accusation could be levelled at many people within Labour who were at best unhelpful to Corbyn and his programme (eg Starmer, Watson) and at worst actively seeking to undermine the programme (eg Austin, Umunna). For better or worse this has always been the case to some extent. Very similar stuff was going on with the struggles between Benn, Callaghan, Healy and Foot. Blair succeeded in uniting the party largely by pumping it full of enough loyal acolytes that the dissenting few (eg Corbyn) could simply be ignored but still safely relied on to deliver thumping majorities every election. Blair’s loyal acolytes then did everything they could to ensure Corbyn was unelectable (and yes he achieved some of that by himself too ). Now, those loyal to Corbyn are trying to do the same to Starmer. The cycle doesn’t look like ending anytime soon...
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 7, 2020 18:32:31 GMT
Unite took particular offence to their money being used to arbitrarily pay off the Panorama 'whitleblowers'.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 7, 2020 18:45:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 7, 2020 18:45:38 GMT
Good news all round I'd say. First, the focus on grassroots unionism is absolutely right. Second, a weakening of the link to the Unions, always portrayed as "control" by the Unions by the right-wing media, will reduce the ability of the press to attack that. Third, it'll probably result in other donors taking their place (not that political donations should be allowed) and increase their "middle ground" electability. Think Starmer will be ok with this all round. As I predicted the Tory in a red tie is distancing himself from the loopy left and trade Union domination , if he keeps this up he will push the next Tory Leader very close I would vote for him at the moment ahead of Bo Jo as he is far more right wing, next election we will have a choice between Blue Tory or Red Tory and not a Marxist or trot in sight
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 8, 2020 6:52:00 GMT
Good news all round I'd say. First, the focus on grassroots unionism is absolutely right. Second, a weakening of the link to the Unions, always portrayed as "control" by the Unions by the right-wing media, will reduce the ability of the press to attack that. Third, it'll probably result in other donors taking their place (not that political donations should be allowed) and increase their "middle ground" electability. Think Starmer will be ok with this all round. I would vote for him at the moment ahead of Bo Jo The ultimate endorsement of the new regime.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 8, 2020 7:56:28 GMT
I would vote for him at the moment ahead of Bo Jo The ultimate endorsement of the new regime. Indeed I do tend to back winners unlike yourself Mo. you have a knack of backing the losers on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 8:03:01 GMT
I would vote for him at the moment ahead of Bo Jo The ultimate endorsement of the new regime. In fairness crapslinger is exactly the type of voter Starmer is targeting, the plan appears to be working
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 8, 2020 8:16:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 8:22:39 GMT
It's quite funny that you keep using the Jewish Chronicle as a reference point, the same Jewish Chronicle that had to be rescued from going bust after being found guilty of libelling Louise Ellman's CLP party claiming antisemitism that didn't exist........
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 8, 2020 9:48:13 GMT
It's quite funny that you keep using the Jewish Chronicle as a reference point, the same Jewish Chronicle that had to be rescued from going bust after being found guilty of libelling Louise Ellman's CLP party claiming antisemitism that didn't exist........ Well when the choice is between a long time panaroma journalist who labour had to settle with for libel and a mysterious report with no author I am pretty sure I know which is the most reliable. And the potential liquidation was driven by covid as well as the fact print is a dying industry, very few papers made money before the pandemic even less do now. And of course if its all lies where are the libel cases ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 9:59:41 GMT
It's quite funny that you keep using the Jewish Chronicle as a reference point, the same Jewish Chronicle that had to be rescued from going bust after being found guilty of libelling Louise Ellman's CLP party claiming antisemitism that didn't exist........ Well when the choice is between a long time panaroma journalist who labour had to settle with for libel and a mysterious report with no author I am pretty sure I know which is the most reliable. And the potential liquidation was driven by covid as well as the fact print is a dying industry, very few papers made money before the pandemic even less do now. And of course if its all lies where are the libel cases ? Labour didn't have to settle though that's the point, they had a more than winnable case. Who's on the consortium that saved the dying newspaper by the way? Mr John Ware. Nothing to see here though........
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 8, 2020 10:08:12 GMT
Well when the choice is between a long time panaroma journalist who labour had to settle with for libel and a mysterious report with no author I am pretty sure I know which is the most reliable. And the potential liquidation was driven by covid as well as the fact print is a dying industry, very few papers made money before the pandemic even less do now. And of course if its all lies where are the libel cases ? Labour didn't have to settle though that's the point, they had a more than winnable case. Who's on the consortium that saved the dying newspaper by the way? Mr John Ware. Nothing to see here though........ Haha more than winnable case lol based on len saying their advice was they would win you still believe that bullshit, if thats the case the lawyer would have offered a no win no fee arrangement just like the people suing had, they didn't. Thats also the same Len who spaffed £1.75m on a libel case against a labour mp defending a skawkbox contributor with interesting views presumably they told him he would win that too.... So as well as his reputation you actually think he will risk his money on printing something he can not 100% prove, whereas Len was just doing it for the cause and not because his ex-girlfriend was bang to rights.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 10:57:35 GMT
Labour didn't have to settle though that's the point, they had a more than winnable case. Who's on the consortium that saved the dying newspaper by the way? Mr John Ware. Nothing to see here though........ Haha more than winnable case lol based on len saying their advice was they would win you still believe that bullshit, if thats the case the lawyer would have offered a no win no fee arrangement just like the people suing had, they didn't. Thats also the same Len who spaffed £1.75m on a libel case against a labour mp defending a skawkbox contributor with interesting views presumably they told him he would win that too.... So as well as his reputation you actually think he will risk his money on printing something he can not 100% prove, whereas Len was just doing it for the cause and not because his ex-girlfriend was bang to rights. That appears to be a bit of a rant, but it's fairly clear to me that by settling Starmer was giving the message that he was being "tough on antisemitism" The reality of course being that it's just an illusion and that the scourge of antisemitism is still prevalent in society and a very small percentage of Labour members.......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 9:53:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 14:44:04 GMT
With this "incredibly grown up and constructive opposition" why aren't Labour 20 points clear (copyright James O'Brien) against the current government?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 9, 2020 14:55:29 GMT
With this "incredibly grown up and constructive opposition" why aren't Labour 20 points clear (copyright James O'Brien) against the current government? He’s playing a long game meaning he is avoiding a short term gain that could cause problems down the road. Meaning, in this case, he is, in the fullness of time, looking to attack Johnson on his inadequate response to coronavirus. That he didn’t take it seriously and took too long to put in place actions to address the problem. If he opposes the 10 pm curfew he gives Johnson an easy defence to that line of attack. It’s politics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 14:59:10 GMT
With this "incredibly grown up and constructive opposition" why aren't Labour 20 points clear (copyright James O'Brien) against the current government? He’s playing a long game meaning he is avoiding a short term gain that could cause problems down the road. Meaning, in this case, he is, in the fullness of time, looking to attack Johnson on his inadequate response to coronavirus. That he didn’t take it seriously and took too long to put in place actions to address the problem. If he opposes the 10 pm curfew he gives Johnson an easy defence to that line of attack. It’s politics. He is opposing the 22:00 curfew, just not enough to vote against it. Which means he isn’t opposing it. Or does it? I’m not sure. That’s politics.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 9, 2020 15:22:18 GMT
I see some single issue PR pages are springing up. This is where Starmers gambit could fail. The thinking is to replace left members and union money with city funders and this appears to be holding up, but the assumption that left wing votera have nowhere else to go might come under a lot of strain with a party pushing PR. Labour has just illustrated the left has no voice within the Labour Party so a move like this could get a lot of traction.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 9, 2020 15:22:24 GMT
He’s playing a long game meaning he is avoiding a short term gain that could cause problems down the road. Meaning, in this case, he is, in the fullness of time, looking to attack Johnson on his inadequate response to coronavirus. That he didn’t take it seriously and took too long to put in place actions to address the problem. If he opposes the 10 pm curfew he gives Johnson an easy defence to that line of attack. It’s politics. He is opposing the 22:00 curfew, just not enough to vote against it. Which means he isn’t opposing it. Or does it? I’m not sure. That’s politics. I don’t think he is opposing the curfew. He is raising questions about how the Government decided that was an appropriate action to take. It’s one of his clever, lawyerly techniques of giving the impression of providing opposition while managing to avoid establishing his own position. His strategy is clear, undermine the Tories while being completely ambiguous and therefore (hopefully for him) avoid alienating potential supporters. It’s a “we hate Boris so we’ll vote for Starmer” strategy rather than “we love Starmer so we’ll vote for him” approach.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 16:30:30 GMT
He is opposing the 22:00 curfew, just not enough to vote against it. Which means he isn’t opposing it. Or does it? I’m not sure. That’s politics. I don’t think he is opposing the curfew. He is raising questions about how the Government decided that was an appropriate action to take. It’s one of his clever, lawyerly techniques of giving the impression of providing opposition while managing to avoid establishing his own position. His strategy is clear, undermine the Tories while being completely ambiguous and therefore (hopefully for him) avoid alienating potential supporters. It’s a “we hate Boris so we’ll vote for Starmer” strategy rather than “we love Starmer so we’ll vote for him” approach. He says "its not working and needs to be reformed" I can only assume that means by not having a 22:00 curfew anymore unless he wants to add extra caveats? You say his strategy is clear, I say to a lot of people it's just procrastination and will do him no favours long term.......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 16:37:02 GMT
I see some single issue PR pages are springing up. This is where Starmers gambit could fail. The thinking is to replace left members and union money with city funders and this appears to be holding up, but the assumption that left wing votera have nowhere else to go might come under a lot of strain with a party pushing PR. Labour has just illustrated the left has no voice within the Labour Party so a move like this could get a lot of traction. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers' Union as well as Unite are now considering reducing their contribution to the Labour Party.....
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 9, 2020 17:04:31 GMT
I see some single issue PR pages are springing up. This is where Starmers gambit could fail. The thinking is to replace left members and union money with city funders and this appears to be holding up, but the assumption that left wing votera have nowhere else to go might come under a lot of strain with a party pushing PR. Labour has just illustrated the left has no voice within the Labour Party so a move like this could get a lot of traction. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers' Union as well as Unite are now considering reducing their contribution to the Labour Party..... I see the Murdoch press make out like the courting of big funders is a response to the union cut. Which is demonstrably untrue. The reverse is true. They are also being cagey about membership figures, but I believe cancelled dd's only count as lapsed memberships after 6 months. Even a loss of 100,000 is half a million quid a month. It will be interesting to see genuine figures at some point. They've been courting big funders already but what return do you have on your money from a party that has to try to win back fifty odd Brexit voting seats and Remain voting Scotland to give you the policy you want. There could be a big appetite across the spectrum for political reform.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 9, 2020 17:32:04 GMT
I don’t think he is opposing the curfew. He is raising questions about how the Government decided that was an appropriate action to take. It’s one of his clever, lawyerly techniques of giving the impression of providing opposition while managing to avoid establishing his own position. His strategy is clear, undermine the Tories while being completely ambiguous and therefore (hopefully for him) avoid alienating potential supporters. It’s a “we hate Boris so we’ll vote for Starmer” strategy rather than “we love Starmer so we’ll vote for him” approach. He says "its not working and needs to be reformed" I can only assume that means by not having a 22:00 curfew anymore unless he wants to add extra caveats? You say his strategy is clear, I say to a lot of people it's just procrastination and will do him no favours long term....... Procrastination is the perfect strategy for folk in opposition. On the basis the Governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them, your main job is to do as much as you can to help the Government lose. Which means keeping schtum about anything that might make you look anything other than awesome (in other words keeping schtum period). And Starmer is pretty darn good at saying not very much. Remember Tony Blair’s theme from 1997 - things can only get better. In politics vacuousness can be a winner. Particularly if your opponents keep digging themselves into holes - as Major’s mob did back in the day which is something this current Government is also doing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 18:12:34 GMT
He says "its not working and needs to be reformed" I can only assume that means by not having a 22:00 curfew anymore unless he wants to add extra caveats? You say his strategy is clear, I say to a lot of people it's just procrastination and will do him no favours long term....... Procrastination is the perfect strategy for folk in opposition. On the basis the Governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them, your main job is to do as much as you can to help the Government lose. Which means keeping schtum about anything that might make you look anything other than awesome (in other words keeping schtum period). And Starmer is pretty darn good at saying not very much. Remember Tony Blair’s theme from 1997 - things can only get better. In politics vacuousness can be a winner. Particularly if your opponents keep digging themselves into holes - as Major’s mob did back in the day which is something this current Government is also doing. The current government will have a different leader before the next election. This so-called genius strategy will count from nothing when the Tories get a new PM bounce, they’re not even ahead in the majority of the polls......
|
|