| A broad church. on 12:11 - May 31 with 1853 views | DJR |
| A broad church. on 22:26 - May 30 by BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/30/purge-of-labour-leftwin
Shaheen said she had been subject to “a systematic campaign of racism, Islamophobia and bullying”. She added: “I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Labour, far from being a broad church encompassing different views, has an ingrained culture of bullying, a palpable problem with black and brown people, and thinks nothing of dragging a person’s good name through the mud in pursuit of a factional agenda, with no thought of the impact on committed members’ mental health and wellbeing.” |
According to Michael Crick, of the first 60 candidates selected by Labour, Shaheen was the only left wing one: I don't think anymore have been selected since.
And this article by Fraser Nelson has an interesting take on things.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/30/starmer-own-party-real-opposition-pu
"When Keir Starmer first became Labour Party leader, he and his team were fascinated by the emergence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “squad” of Left-wingers in US Congress. How did this group of four newly-elected Democrats, all women under-50 with no power or experience, acquire such potency and profile? Why did their agenda seem to attract so much attention that they were able to go up against (and defeat) their own party leadership? And who might present a similar threat to Labour?
Having been in a television studio with Faiza Shaheen, I can see her potential. She’s young, articulate and fizzes with AOC-style energy (and politics). She is endorsed by celebrities and sought by television interviewers in spite of not even being an MP. She certainly would have been elected this time had she not been purged, at the last minute, by Labour HQ. Her offence? In theory, “liking” the wrong tweets. In practice, it was possession of two banned substances: charisma and socialist politics.
So Starmer’s team are asking: who might form the British version of AOC’s squad? And how can they be dealt with now?
It’s wrong to think that Diane Abbott is merely being punished for a past offence: she is a potential future threat.
In theory, it’s all the work of an independent panel. In practice, the entire Labour Party can see what’s happening. It’s more Terminator than Godfather: acting before anyone has the chance to become a threat.
It’s been going on for years. Starmer has been winning pretty much every candidate selection battle. Having risen to the top of the UK legal bureaucracy, he is a master in how to exert power by tweaking the rules and thwarting enemies by procedure rather than open argument. So his targets suddenly find legalistic trapdoors opening underneath them, or discover that their usual routes have become blocked.
And the result? In the space of just four years, Starmer has taken his party from smouldering post-Corbynite wreck to a seemingly unstoppable election force. The remaining Corbynites, like John McDonnell, Richard Burgon and Zarah Sultana, have been successfully terrified. They dare not make any serious fuss aboutCorbyn’s expulsion and have even been well-behaved on Israel – knowing that Starmer’s team would happily purge them given the chance.
This isn’t just about liquidating ringleaders. It’s about purging anyone with the potential to become one – and on the slightest pretext.
Starmer is prioritising politics and choosing solid types unlikely to rebel over anything. My colleague Katy Balls has called them the “Starmtroopers”.
These have been treated over the past few months with regular awaydays and near-weekly Zoom tuition sessions on how to be a good MP. Some of the more experienced figures have been surprised by how pliable the new recruits all seem to be. After Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves appeared on a call to explain their humiliating decision to drop the £28 billion-a-year green pledge, the questions-and-answer session was filled with flattery for how well they handled the debacle.
There are a few more on his little list who may be struck off by Tuesday when Labour’s National Executive Committee meets to make a final decision on candidates. There had been talk of dropping suspected sex pests, but they are generally centrists not regarded as troublemakers. Separately, poor Liam Byrne, who wrote the now-infamous “there is no money” note when he was chief secretary to the Treasury, has long been on the endangered list. But there’s always time to purge people after the election if Starmer’s majority is big enough.
Only Angela Rayner is unsackable, insofar as the deputy Labour leader is directly elected by members. Perhaps this is why she can afford to blow some strategic kisses to Abbott. Starmer can afford to let her. He has the biggest opinion poll lead ever seen by an Opposition leader at the start of an election campaign, save for that secured by Tony Blair.
Given that Starmer may never be more powerful as party leader than he is now, it’s striking to see what he’s not doing. He could claim a democratic mandate for any serious agenda: tough-love welfare reform, for example, would be needed to reduce poverty. Deep NHS reform will be needed to stop its collapse.
By pledging either now, Starmer would later be able to silence any parliamentary opposition. Under the so-called Salisbury Convention, manifesto pledges are never rejected by the Lords. Perhaps he thinks his majority will be so big – and his backbenchers so pliant – that his only problem in Parliament will be controlling the volume of applause.
Tony Blair certainly tolerated a much broader church than Starmer is building now: some of the former Trots in his ranks – the likes of John Reid and Alan Milburn – went on to be his most trusted, reform-minded lieutenants. And that’s the bigger risk: that a quest for the perfect Starmtroopers drains the flair, characters and thinkers any prime minister would need. A party without diversity of thought – or internal debate – will be a very dull party indeed."
EDIT: It looks like we'll end up with an entire party full of bland Identikit yespeople. The contrast with the big beasts in the Blair government couldn't be greater. [Post edited 31 May 2024 12:23]
|  | |  |
| A broad church. on 12:24 - May 31 with 1806 views | Whos_blue |
| A broad church. on 12:11 - May 31 by DJR |
According to Michael Crick, of the first 60 candidates selected by Labour, Shaheen was the only left wing one: I don't think anymore have been selected since.
And this article by Fraser Nelson has an interesting take on things.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/30/starmer-own-party-real-opposition-pu
"When Keir Starmer first became Labour Party leader, he and his team were fascinated by the emergence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “squad” of Left-wingers in US Congress. How did this group of four newly-elected Democrats, all women under-50 with no power or experience, acquire such potency and profile? Why did their agenda seem to attract so much attention that they were able to go up against (and defeat) their own party leadership? And who might present a similar threat to Labour?
Having been in a television studio with Faiza Shaheen, I can see her potential. She’s young, articulate and fizzes with AOC-style energy (and politics). She is endorsed by celebrities and sought by television interviewers in spite of not even being an MP. She certainly would have been elected this time had she not been purged, at the last minute, by Labour HQ. Her offence? In theory, “liking” the wrong tweets. In practice, it was possession of two banned substances: charisma and socialist politics.
So Starmer’s team are asking: who might form the British version of AOC’s squad? And how can they be dealt with now?
It’s wrong to think that Diane Abbott is merely being punished for a past offence: she is a potential future threat.
In theory, it’s all the work of an independent panel. In practice, the entire Labour Party can see what’s happening. It’s more Terminator than Godfather: acting before anyone has the chance to become a threat.
It’s been going on for years. Starmer has been winning pretty much every candidate selection battle. Having risen to the top of the UK legal bureaucracy, he is a master in how to exert power by tweaking the rules and thwarting enemies by procedure rather than open argument. So his targets suddenly find legalistic trapdoors opening underneath them, or discover that their usual routes have become blocked.
And the result? In the space of just four years, Starmer has taken his party from smouldering post-Corbynite wreck to a seemingly unstoppable election force. The remaining Corbynites, like John McDonnell, Richard Burgon and Zarah Sultana, have been successfully terrified. They dare not make any serious fuss aboutCorbyn’s expulsion and have even been well-behaved on Israel – knowing that Starmer’s team would happily purge them given the chance.
This isn’t just about liquidating ringleaders. It’s about purging anyone with the potential to become one – and on the slightest pretext.
Starmer is prioritising politics and choosing solid types unlikely to rebel over anything. My colleague Katy Balls has called them the “Starmtroopers”.
These have been treated over the past few months with regular awaydays and near-weekly Zoom tuition sessions on how to be a good MP. Some of the more experienced figures have been surprised by how pliable the new recruits all seem to be. After Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves appeared on a call to explain their humiliating decision to drop the £28 billion-a-year green pledge, the questions-and-answer session was filled with flattery for how well they handled the debacle.
There are a few more on his little list who may be struck off by Tuesday when Labour’s National Executive Committee meets to make a final decision on candidates. There had been talk of dropping suspected sex pests, but they are generally centrists not regarded as troublemakers. Separately, poor Liam Byrne, who wrote the now-infamous “there is no money” note when he was chief secretary to the Treasury, has long been on the endangered list. But there’s always time to purge people after the election if Starmer’s majority is big enough.
Only Angela Rayner is unsackable, insofar as the deputy Labour leader is directly elected by members. Perhaps this is why she can afford to blow some strategic kisses to Abbott. Starmer can afford to let her. He has the biggest opinion poll lead ever seen by an Opposition leader at the start of an election campaign, save for that secured by Tony Blair.
Given that Starmer may never be more powerful as party leader than he is now, it’s striking to see what he’s not doing. He could claim a democratic mandate for any serious agenda: tough-love welfare reform, for example, would be needed to reduce poverty. Deep NHS reform will be needed to stop its collapse.
By pledging either now, Starmer would later be able to silence any parliamentary opposition. Under the so-called Salisbury Convention, manifesto pledges are never rejected by the Lords. Perhaps he thinks his majority will be so big – and his backbenchers so pliant – that his only problem in Parliament will be controlling the volume of applause.
Tony Blair certainly tolerated a much broader church than Starmer is building now: some of the former Trots in his ranks – the likes of John Reid and Alan Milburn – went on to be his most trusted, reform-minded lieutenants. And that’s the bigger risk: that a quest for the perfect Starmtroopers drains the flair, characters and thinkers any prime minister would need. A party without diversity of thought – or internal debate – will be a very dull party indeed."
EDIT: It looks like we'll end up with an entire party full of bland Identikit yespeople. The contrast with the big beasts in the Blair government couldn't be greater. [Post edited 31 May 2024 12:23]
|
Very thought provoking post and thanks for taking the time to pull it together.
Half way through I was immediately drawn to reply about Rayner's comments yesterday and that there may be a little bit of the left still left in the old dog yet (the party before anyone accuses me of a derogatory term!), but you then made the comment that Rayner may have been "allowed" to make her supportive comments about Abbott. A thought provoking take.
I stopped donating over the terrible mishandling of the Gaza crisis.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt when their position cooled a bit and I looked towards the bigger picture of the election.
My purse remains snapped shut again while this whole Abbott debacle runs.
I want rid of this attrocious tory government, but the Labour party are making it hard to love them at the mo. |  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| A broad church. on 12:57 - May 31 with 1771 views | DJR |
| A broad church. on 12:24 - May 31 by Whos_blue |
Very thought provoking post and thanks for taking the time to pull it together.
Half way through I was immediately drawn to reply about Rayner's comments yesterday and that there may be a little bit of the left still left in the old dog yet (the party before anyone accuses me of a derogatory term!), but you then made the comment that Rayner may have been "allowed" to make her supportive comments about Abbott. A thought provoking take.
I stopped donating over the terrible mishandling of the Gaza crisis.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt when their position cooled a bit and I looked towards the bigger picture of the election.
My purse remains snapped shut again while this whole Abbott debacle runs.
I want rid of this attrocious tory government, but the Labour party are making it hard to love them at the mo. |
My view is that if those in charge of the Labour Party could get rid of Rayner they would, but she has been elected as Deputy Leader and so her position is secure.
And Michael Crick himself doubted whether Rayner these days would even be selected as a candidate, in part because of the dearth of working class candidates and also because she has a mind of her own.
Interestingly, Chris Ward, a close friend of Starmer who worked as his aide and speech writer for six years, has been chosen as Labour’s candidate for Brighton Kemptown to replace Lloyd Russell-Moyle.
What's the Starmer equivalent of Tony's Cronies, and can you imagine any of the new breed ever voting to oppose the war in Iraq, or opposing the party line on Gaza?
EDIT: I'll make a prediction. If Russell-Moyle is subsequently cleared, he will never be allowed to be a candidate again, being as he is a member of the Campaign Group. [Post edited 31 May 2024 13:07]
| | | |
| A broad church. on 14:00 - May 31 with 1721 views | Whos_blue |
| A broad church. on 12:57 - May 31 by DJR |
My view is that if those in charge of the Labour Party could get rid of Rayner they would, but she has been elected as Deputy Leader and so her position is secure.
And Michael Crick himself doubted whether Rayner these days would even be selected as a candidate, in part because of the dearth of working class candidates and also because she has a mind of her own.
Interestingly, Chris Ward, a close friend of Starmer who worked as his aide and speech writer for six years, has been chosen as Labour’s candidate for Brighton Kemptown to replace Lloyd Russell-Moyle.
What's the Starmer equivalent of Tony's Cronies, and can you imagine any of the new breed ever voting to oppose the war in Iraq, or opposing the party line on Gaza?
EDIT: I'll make a prediction. If Russell-Moyle is subsequently cleared, he will never be allowed to be a candidate again, being as he is a member of the Campaign Group. [Post edited 31 May 2024 13:07]
|
It seems Abbott is back on the paper, so that's a start I guess. | |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| A broad church. on 15:02 - May 31 with 1663 views | DJR |
| A broad church. on 14:00 - May 31 by Whos_blue |
It seems Abbott is back on the paper, so that's a start I guess. |
A combination of deliberate delay, deceitfulness, cack-handedness, and a backlash/furore which has overshadowed their election campaign, has led to this, assuming it actually happens.
But interesting to note that it is Starmer who has says she can be a candidate when he claimed he had nothing to do with the process. [Post edited 31 May 2024 15:04]
| | | |
| A broad church. on 10:33 - Jun 2 with 1475 views | DJR |
Interesting to see that Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation has become the Labour candidate for Swansea West.
Sounds to me that he will be a bit of a fish out of water there, but given his cleverness, I can see a rapid rise for him.
Incidentally, he was a member of my CLP before my time, and others in the local party speak highly of him. [Post edited 2 Jun 2024 10:36]
| | | |
| A broad church. on 10:45 - Jun 2 with 1451 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| A broad church. on 12:11 - May 31 by DJR |
According to Michael Crick, of the first 60 candidates selected by Labour, Shaheen was the only left wing one: I don't think anymore have been selected since.
And this article by Fraser Nelson has an interesting take on things.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/30/starmer-own-party-real-opposition-pu
"When Keir Starmer first became Labour Party leader, he and his team were fascinated by the emergence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “squad” of Left-wingers in US Congress. How did this group of four newly-elected Democrats, all women under-50 with no power or experience, acquire such potency and profile? Why did their agenda seem to attract so much attention that they were able to go up against (and defeat) their own party leadership? And who might present a similar threat to Labour?
Having been in a television studio with Faiza Shaheen, I can see her potential. She’s young, articulate and fizzes with AOC-style energy (and politics). She is endorsed by celebrities and sought by television interviewers in spite of not even being an MP. She certainly would have been elected this time had she not been purged, at the last minute, by Labour HQ. Her offence? In theory, “liking” the wrong tweets. In practice, it was possession of two banned substances: charisma and socialist politics.
So Starmer’s team are asking: who might form the British version of AOC’s squad? And how can they be dealt with now?
It’s wrong to think that Diane Abbott is merely being punished for a past offence: she is a potential future threat.
In theory, it’s all the work of an independent panel. In practice, the entire Labour Party can see what’s happening. It’s more Terminator than Godfather: acting before anyone has the chance to become a threat.
It’s been going on for years. Starmer has been winning pretty much every candidate selection battle. Having risen to the top of the UK legal bureaucracy, he is a master in how to exert power by tweaking the rules and thwarting enemies by procedure rather than open argument. So his targets suddenly find legalistic trapdoors opening underneath them, or discover that their usual routes have become blocked.
And the result? In the space of just four years, Starmer has taken his party from smouldering post-Corbynite wreck to a seemingly unstoppable election force. The remaining Corbynites, like John McDonnell, Richard Burgon and Zarah Sultana, have been successfully terrified. They dare not make any serious fuss aboutCorbyn’s expulsion and have even been well-behaved on Israel – knowing that Starmer’s team would happily purge them given the chance.
This isn’t just about liquidating ringleaders. It’s about purging anyone with the potential to become one – and on the slightest pretext.
Starmer is prioritising politics and choosing solid types unlikely to rebel over anything. My colleague Katy Balls has called them the “Starmtroopers”.
These have been treated over the past few months with regular awaydays and near-weekly Zoom tuition sessions on how to be a good MP. Some of the more experienced figures have been surprised by how pliable the new recruits all seem to be. After Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves appeared on a call to explain their humiliating decision to drop the £28 billion-a-year green pledge, the questions-and-answer session was filled with flattery for how well they handled the debacle.
There are a few more on his little list who may be struck off by Tuesday when Labour’s National Executive Committee meets to make a final decision on candidates. There had been talk of dropping suspected sex pests, but they are generally centrists not regarded as troublemakers. Separately, poor Liam Byrne, who wrote the now-infamous “there is no money” note when he was chief secretary to the Treasury, has long been on the endangered list. But there’s always time to purge people after the election if Starmer’s majority is big enough.
Only Angela Rayner is unsackable, insofar as the deputy Labour leader is directly elected by members. Perhaps this is why she can afford to blow some strategic kisses to Abbott. Starmer can afford to let her. He has the biggest opinion poll lead ever seen by an Opposition leader at the start of an election campaign, save for that secured by Tony Blair.
Given that Starmer may never be more powerful as party leader than he is now, it’s striking to see what he’s not doing. He could claim a democratic mandate for any serious agenda: tough-love welfare reform, for example, would be needed to reduce poverty. Deep NHS reform will be needed to stop its collapse.
By pledging either now, Starmer would later be able to silence any parliamentary opposition. Under the so-called Salisbury Convention, manifesto pledges are never rejected by the Lords. Perhaps he thinks his majority will be so big – and his backbenchers so pliant – that his only problem in Parliament will be controlling the volume of applause.
Tony Blair certainly tolerated a much broader church than Starmer is building now: some of the former Trots in his ranks – the likes of John Reid and Alan Milburn – went on to be his most trusted, reform-minded lieutenants. And that’s the bigger risk: that a quest for the perfect Starmtroopers drains the flair, characters and thinkers any prime minister would need. A party without diversity of thought – or internal debate – will be a very dull party indeed."
EDIT: It looks like we'll end up with an entire party full of bland Identikit yespeople. The contrast with the big beasts in the Blair government couldn't be greater. [Post edited 31 May 2024 12:23]
|
This made me laugh out loud.
In theory, “liking” the wrong tweets. In practice, it was possession of two banned substances: charisma and socialist politics. |  |
| |
| A broad church. on 12:01 - Jun 2 with 1411 views | lowhouseblue |
| A broad church. on 12:11 - May 31 by DJR |
According to Michael Crick, of the first 60 candidates selected by Labour, Shaheen was the only left wing one: I don't think anymore have been selected since.
And this article by Fraser Nelson has an interesting take on things.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/30/starmer-own-party-real-opposition-pu
"When Keir Starmer first became Labour Party leader, he and his team were fascinated by the emergence of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “squad” of Left-wingers in US Congress. How did this group of four newly-elected Democrats, all women under-50 with no power or experience, acquire such potency and profile? Why did their agenda seem to attract so much attention that they were able to go up against (and defeat) their own party leadership? And who might present a similar threat to Labour?
Having been in a television studio with Faiza Shaheen, I can see her potential. She’s young, articulate and fizzes with AOC-style energy (and politics). She is endorsed by celebrities and sought by television interviewers in spite of not even being an MP. She certainly would have been elected this time had she not been purged, at the last minute, by Labour HQ. Her offence? In theory, “liking” the wrong tweets. In practice, it was possession of two banned substances: charisma and socialist politics.
So Starmer’s team are asking: who might form the British version of AOC’s squad? And how can they be dealt with now?
It’s wrong to think that Diane Abbott is merely being punished for a past offence: she is a potential future threat.
In theory, it’s all the work of an independent panel. In practice, the entire Labour Party can see what’s happening. It’s more Terminator than Godfather: acting before anyone has the chance to become a threat.
It’s been going on for years. Starmer has been winning pretty much every candidate selection battle. Having risen to the top of the UK legal bureaucracy, he is a master in how to exert power by tweaking the rules and thwarting enemies by procedure rather than open argument. So his targets suddenly find legalistic trapdoors opening underneath them, or discover that their usual routes have become blocked.
And the result? In the space of just four years, Starmer has taken his party from smouldering post-Corbynite wreck to a seemingly unstoppable election force. The remaining Corbynites, like John McDonnell, Richard Burgon and Zarah Sultana, have been successfully terrified. They dare not make any serious fuss aboutCorbyn’s expulsion and have even been well-behaved on Israel – knowing that Starmer’s team would happily purge them given the chance.
This isn’t just about liquidating ringleaders. It’s about purging anyone with the potential to become one – and on the slightest pretext.
Starmer is prioritising politics and choosing solid types unlikely to rebel over anything. My colleague Katy Balls has called them the “Starmtroopers”.
These have been treated over the past few months with regular awaydays and near-weekly Zoom tuition sessions on how to be a good MP. Some of the more experienced figures have been surprised by how pliable the new recruits all seem to be. After Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves appeared on a call to explain their humiliating decision to drop the £28 billion-a-year green pledge, the questions-and-answer session was filled with flattery for how well they handled the debacle.
There are a few more on his little list who may be struck off by Tuesday when Labour’s National Executive Committee meets to make a final decision on candidates. There had been talk of dropping suspected sex pests, but they are generally centrists not regarded as troublemakers. Separately, poor Liam Byrne, who wrote the now-infamous “there is no money” note when he was chief secretary to the Treasury, has long been on the endangered list. But there’s always time to purge people after the election if Starmer’s majority is big enough.
Only Angela Rayner is unsackable, insofar as the deputy Labour leader is directly elected by members. Perhaps this is why she can afford to blow some strategic kisses to Abbott. Starmer can afford to let her. He has the biggest opinion poll lead ever seen by an Opposition leader at the start of an election campaign, save for that secured by Tony Blair.
Given that Starmer may never be more powerful as party leader than he is now, it’s striking to see what he’s not doing. He could claim a democratic mandate for any serious agenda: tough-love welfare reform, for example, would be needed to reduce poverty. Deep NHS reform will be needed to stop its collapse.
By pledging either now, Starmer would later be able to silence any parliamentary opposition. Under the so-called Salisbury Convention, manifesto pledges are never rejected by the Lords. Perhaps he thinks his majority will be so big – and his backbenchers so pliant – that his only problem in Parliament will be controlling the volume of applause.
Tony Blair certainly tolerated a much broader church than Starmer is building now: some of the former Trots in his ranks – the likes of John Reid and Alan Milburn – went on to be his most trusted, reform-minded lieutenants. And that’s the bigger risk: that a quest for the perfect Starmtroopers drains the flair, characters and thinkers any prime minister would need. A party without diversity of thought – or internal debate – will be a very dull party indeed."
EDIT: It looks like we'll end up with an entire party full of bland Identikit yespeople. The contrast with the big beasts in the Blair government couldn't be greater. [Post edited 31 May 2024 12:23]
|
so it's ok to post from the telegraph / editor of the spectator if they're attacking starmer? good to know.
the real downside to taking this damage limitation approach with respect to the hard left too far, is that with a possibly large majority all the opposition from the left will then come from outside parliament. which is very unhealthy and in tough times can be very divisive and destabilising. you need some 'lightening rods' from the left inside parliament to articulate challenges and legitimise parliamentary debate and process. if parliament can't articulate challenge from the left it encourages extremism, and anti-government and conspiracy nonsense. even party rebels have a role - as long as their number is much less than the party's majority. [Post edited 2 Jun 2024 12:05]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A broad church. on 12:11 - Jun 2 with 1378 views | DJR |
| A broad church. on 12:01 - Jun 2 by lowhouseblue |
so it's ok to post from the telegraph / editor of the spectator if they're attacking starmer? good to know.
the real downside to taking this damage limitation approach with respect to the hard left too far, is that with a possibly large majority all the opposition from the left will then come from outside parliament. which is very unhealthy and in tough times can be very divisive and destabilising. you need some 'lightening rods' from the left inside parliament to articulate challenges and legitimise parliamentary debate and process. if parliament can't articulate challenge from the left it encourages extremism, and anti-government and conspiracy nonsense. even party rebels have a role - as long as their number is much less than the party's majority. [Post edited 2 Jun 2024 12:05]
|
There's no ban on TWTD on posting from the Telegraph if you want (assuming there's no paywall) but, in any event, I have a free subscription to it through a friend. In my view, it's good to take in a variety of views, and Fraser Nelson (whilst I don't share his views generally) is an experienced commentator, is prepared to criticise the Tories and doesn't tend to write the sort of blinkered nonsense that makes up most Telegraph comment articles.
And given the title of this thread, I thought his article comes from an interesting angle, so thought it might be of interest to some. I might add that it is not just the left who have issues with what the Labour Party is up to. Two that spring to mind are John McTiernan and Michael Crick, hardly well-known lefties.
[Post edited 2 Jun 2024 12:24]
| | | |
| A broad church. on 12:29 - Jun 2 with 1325 views | lowhouseblue |
| A broad church. on 12:11 - Jun 2 by DJR |
There's no ban on TWTD on posting from the Telegraph if you want (assuming there's no paywall) but, in any event, I have a free subscription to it through a friend. In my view, it's good to take in a variety of views, and Fraser Nelson (whilst I don't share his views generally) is an experienced commentator, is prepared to criticise the Tories and doesn't tend to write the sort of blinkered nonsense that makes up most Telegraph comment articles.
And given the title of this thread, I thought his article comes from an interesting angle, so thought it might be of interest to some. I might add that it is not just the left who have issues with what the Labour Party is up to. Two that spring to mind are John McTiernan and Michael Crick, hardly well-known lefties.
[Post edited 2 Jun 2024 12:24]
|
my post recognised that there are dangers in taking this risk assessment of candidates too far, but if it means that labour wins, can govern effectively, deliver its manifesto, and isn't distracted as it has been in past, that's a good thing. indeed, if it means that there is never again a group of mps who can nominate someone like corbyn as leader (even if many of them later regretted it) that would be a very good thing. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| A broad church. on 12:38 - Jun 2 with 1284 views | J2BLUE |
MPs crossing over to the Lords really does make a mockery of the two houses system. It's completely out of date anyway. |  |
| |
| A broad church. on 14:19 - Jun 2 with 1203 views | GlasgowBlue |
| A broad church. on 12:38 - Jun 2 by J2BLUE |
MPs crossing over to the Lords really does make a mockery of the two houses system. It's completely out of date anyway. |
It's a genius move by Starmer. Give peerages to Abbott and McDonnell, then his first act as Prime Minister is to abolish the House of Lords. |  |
| |
| A broad church. on 15:10 - Jun 2 with 1156 views | DJR |
| A broad church. on 12:29 - Jun 2 by lowhouseblue |
my post recognised that there are dangers in taking this risk assessment of candidates too far, but if it means that labour wins, can govern effectively, deliver its manifesto, and isn't distracted as it has been in past, that's a good thing. indeed, if it means that there is never again a group of mps who can nominate someone like corbyn as leader (even if many of them later regretted it) that would be a very good thing. |
My issue is that the centre ground has moved to the right over the years, so with Starmer promising to act from the centre ground, and a parliamentary party and Labour rules that will enforce this approach for good, any prospect of European social democracy in this country is off the table forever.
Of course, this is good for those in charge of the current Labour party, and for those who support this approach, but not good for any of us even slightly to the left.
In this connection, it is interesting that even some people close to Blair's government think Starmer should be more radical, but he never will be.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/01/starmer-must-introduce- [Post edited 2 Jun 2024 15:11]
| | | |
| A broad church. on 18:28 - Jun 2 with 1083 views | DJR |
There will be no Baroness Abbott of Clapton.
This from a Tweet by her.
“I have never been offered a seat in the Lords, and would not accept one if offered.
I am the adopted Labour candidate for Hackney North & Stoke Newington. I intend to run and to win as Labour's candidate.” | | | |
| A broad church. on 07:40 - Jul 5 with 588 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| A broad church. on 22:26 - May 30 by BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/30/purge-of-labour-leftwin
Shaheen said she had been subject to “a systematic campaign of racism, Islamophobia and bullying”. She added: “I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Labour, far from being a broad church encompassing different views, has an ingrained culture of bullying, a palpable problem with black and brown people, and thinks nothing of dragging a person’s good name through the mud in pursuit of a factional agenda, with no thought of the impact on committed members’ mental health and wellbeing.” |
Glad Labour got what they deserved in Chingford. Wonder what the odds on a Conservative win were as I believe I tipped it somewhere. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
