Labour Party discussion: "Shouting Starmer Starmer Starmer mega mega white man!"

[Buelligan]

I'm becoming more Twed like on this count. It is certainly not sufficient or necessary for stuff to get worse, only in a slightly slower way. There were periods of New Labour where that was what was happening—Iraq and PFI for two good examples. If we can't use our time in government to make stuff better, then I think it would be better to hold fire until we can. Otherwise we'll perennially be regarded as All The Same and that does no-one any good. It will be necessary to look at the offer in a few years' time and make a decision then as to whether it is worth campaigning for Labour, or even voting for it.

I completely agree but I also, strongly, feel that each of us must continue to vote and push in every way we can to keep that a possibility.  The moment we stop we'll be drowning in racist mugs, I'm not even joking.

[pancreas]

The NEC elections are the next battleground. Lansman is going to have to start talking to people or we'll split the vote. He will have to accept a JVL person on a left slate. I hope he knows this.

[Buelligan]

What do you think about Lansman? 

[pancreas]

By reputation he is an ornery control-freak. He doesn't believe in democracy and he doesn't believe in consensus. He is also obviously concerned to make sure that he doesn't upset whatever is meant by The Jewish Community too much, which means treating all the AS smears as if wholly true and trying to shut out JVL because they don't.

[holyzombiejesus]

I'm becoming more Twed like on this count. It is certainly not sufficient or necessary for stuff to get worse, only in a slightly slower way. There were periods of New Labour where that was what was happening—Iraq and PFI for two good examples. If we can't use our time in government to make stuff better, then I think it would be better to hold fire until we can. Otherwise we'll perennially be regarded as All The Same and that does no-one any good. It will be necessary to look at the offer in a few years' time and make a decision then as to whether it is worth campaigning for Labour, or even voting for it.

War obviously complicates the picture somewhat, and the long-term effects of PFI have been devastating. But, apart from that, I think you could confidently state that the country was a better place after Blair than before him. And that's not even taking in to account what would have happened if the tories had been in for those years. (Should add that I think Tony Blair is a cunt.) There's that trite poster that some people posted on facebook in December - think of the most vulnerable person you know and vote in their best interests. Schmaltzy nonsense in one sense but not voting because we're not going to end neoliberalism and leaving poor and vulnerable to the tories whilst we wait for some kind of ideologically sound party seems negligent. Obviously fight tooth and nail to try and make Labour as true to their socialist principles as possible but I don't think you jetison the poor because you don't get your own way.

[Buelligan]

I agree, you don't jettison the poor because you don't get your own way.  But, if you're poor, you know you're going to continue being exploited and screwed until someone stops it.  People like Blair don't stop it, they just improve the rations enough so's you keep working.  People might accept that for themselves, no one wants to hand it on to their kids. 

By reputation he is an ornery control-freak. He doesn't believe in democracy and he doesn't believe in consensus. He is also obviously concerned to make sure that he doesn't upset whatever is meant by The Jewish Community too much, which means treating all the AS smears as if wholly true and trying to shut out JVL because they don't.

Yes, did you see him on Tysky when the notorious and unspoken-of report was leaked?  I was really very unimpressed.  He just came across as completely wooly and not on top of shit at all.  Whether that's a front or not doesn't matter IMO.  I just think we need someone more direct and powerful (in the sense of forthright clarity) quite desperately.

[NoSleep]

War obviously complicates the picture somewhat, and the long-term effects of PFI have been devastating. But, apart from that, I think you could confidently state that the country was a better place after Blair than before him. And that's not even taking in to account what would have happened if the tories had been in for those years. (Should add that I think Tony Blair is a cunt.) There's that trite poster that some people posted on facebook in December - think of the most vulnerable person you know and vote in their best interests. Schmaltzy nonsense in one sense but not voting because we're not going to end neoliberalism and leaving poor and vulnerable to the tories whilst we wait for some kind of ideologically sound party seems negligent. Obviously fight tooth and nail to try and make Labour as true to their socialist principles as possible but I don't think you jetison the poor because you don't get your own way.

I don't want to perpetually vote against the Tories as a default, I want something to vote for. We began to see that in the UK thanks to Corbyn, and now it seems to have been allowed to escape us.

[king_tubby]

https://twitter.com/stavvers/status/1257763791447773184

[holyzombiejesus]

Time was a @UKLabour policy tweet would get hundreds, thousands of retweets within minutes of going up. Here's Sir Forensic Haircut's big policy push; top of a thread, and under 100 likes almost four hours later.

Christ. Well, that's certainly changed my mind about the anti-Starmers behaving just like blue ticks and bald sex pests did against Corbyn.

[Buelligan]

Are they all signed up members of Friends of Mongolia though?  Is the Daily Mail, the Guardian, Times, Express, Sun, Metro, BBC, ITV, Sky and Evening Standard backing them?  Where's Maggie Hodge, Smeeth, Streeting and the rest?  Would Jess stab him anywhere?  Do HIGNFY and Cameron's mum have a view?  In short, does Sir Keith wear a vest and, if so, where does he buy them?

[pancreas]

Christ. Well, that's certainly changed my mind about the anti-Starmers behaving just like blue ticks and bald sex pests did against Corbyn.

It's indicative of something. The only people who cared what the Labour Party said about anything don't care about what it's saying right now. That's something.

[king_tubby]

It's indicative of something. The only people who cared what the Labour Party said about anything don't care about what it's saying right now. That's something.

Yes, I thought that was the obvious take.

[Absorb the anus burn]

It's bland, inoffensive nothingness.... What the fuck does Sir Erik Armrest stand for?

[idunnosomename]

lol

https://mobile.twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1257756942556180483

i mean i wonder what the fuck is up with this bald bastard. is he just being silly with his love for the blair era? or does he really believe tony blair is the messiah? saggy old cunt

[holyzombiejesus]

It's indicative of something. The only people who cared what the Labour Party said about anything don't care about what it's saying right now. That's something.

We wouldn't have got hundreds/ thousands of retweets for some boring announcement like 'we need consensus' though. Twisting it to make it sound like we're announcing policies that no fucker gives a shit about is disingenuous at best. People are like jackals, seizing on anything they can use to have a go at Starmer. He's a beige boring man that the majority of us on here didn't want. He's promised to implement the ten 'Corbyn' policies in his leadership manifesto but has also displayed some worrying traits of playing to the right of the party. That's it. Wait and see. No need to interpret everything going as a sign that he's a vile worm.

[olliebean]

"We need to form a consensus about what to do" is not a policy tweet. It seems like more of a lack of policy tweet.

[Absorb the anus burn]

Starmer welcomes back another tit who didn't want Labour to succeed in 2017...

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/05/05/analysis-starmer-appoints-comms-director-who-wrote-for-tory-mag-and-murdoch-quit-over-2017-surge-and-appears-in-leaked-report/

".... Keir Starmer has appointed former Labour HQ staffer Paul Ovenden as his director of communications. Mr Ovenden, who has written critically of Labour for the conservative Spectator magazine and Rupert Murdoch's Times, quit his party role in 2017 – by his own admission – because he didn't want to be there after Labour did far better than centrists and the media had predicted in the general election... "

Anyone get the feeling Sir Armrest wants socialists to fuck off out of the party?

[BlodwynPig]

Wonder how Tyskie are going to Spin Starmer now... *former Anarchist* Michael Walker impassioned yet limp, Bastani scything yet cautious. We need the socialist Rottweiler.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Starmer welcomes back another tit who didn't want Labour to succeed in 2017...

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/05/05/analysis-starmer-appoints-comms-director-who-wrote-for-tory-mag-and-murdoch-quit-over-2017-surge-and-appears-in-leaked-report/

".... Keir Starmer has appointed former Labour HQ staffer Paul Ovenden as his director of communications. Mr Ovenden, who has written critically of Labour for the conservative Spectator magazine and Rupert Murdoch's Times, quit his party role in 2017 – by his own admission – because he didn't want to be there after Labour did far better than centrists and the media had predicted in the general election... "

Anyone get the feeling Sir Armrest wants socialists to fuck off out of the party?

I would share this online but I'm done with the

"Duhhh, maybe he actually Wants Labour to yknow like win elections"

I'm sure I had a ready made reply to that which did the trick on hundreds of occasions but if I even saw that right now I would accuse the poster of being a predatory paedophile and rapist. The whole situation from March onwards has been deleterious for the mental health of anyone remaining who was of sound mind and humanist of instinct.

[gib]

It's bland, inoffensive nothingness.... What the fuck does Sir Erik Armrest stand for?

The national anthem mate, not like that bloody corbyn!

[Buelligan]

You read my mind!

[Absorb the anus burn]

I feel utter despair.

[Buelligan]

I don't feel utter despair.  I felt pretty close to it when JC resigned.  It was pretty plain things could go rather badly.  You only have to remember the launch of Angela or Owen, the gerrymandering, the Smeeth Parade, all of it, so much from inside the our own party, to understand that once Jezzer was on the stone table things could go rather badly.  Now, I just feel that we must continue to witness, vote and speak up because this fight has been going on for millennia.  We can't be the ones to give up.

[jobotic]

I'm one to give up.

Anyway, if you want to read Starmer's latest views on our post-coronavirus society you can, behind a Murdoch paywall.

[Danger Man]

Well....it looks like the 2020's will be the 1930's then we'll have a world war and in 2035 we'll get an Attlee style government.

Just have to play the long game.

[pancreas]

We wouldn't have got hundreds/ thousands of retweets for some boring announcement like 'we need consensus' though. Twisting it to make it sound like we're announcing policies that no fucker gives a shit about is disingenuous at best. People are like jackals, seizing on anything they can use to have a go at Starmer. He's a beige boring man that the majority of us on here didn't want. He's promised to implement the ten 'Corbyn' policies in his leadership manifesto but has also displayed some worrying traits of playing to the right of the party. That's it. Wait and see. No need to interpret everything going as a sign that he's a vile worm.

As I've said, I am waiting, I am seeing. My test will be, as I think it should be for everyone: will Labour make things better? (Noticeably, if not a lot.) If the answer is yes, I'll probably do something for them. If it's not, then I may not even vote for them.

[idunnosomename]

genuinely would like to punch john redwood so hard in the face his skull caves in

CAVEAT: but i will not because i abhor violence.

[Johnny Yesno]

We wouldn't have got hundreds/ thousands of retweets for some boring announcement like 'we need consensus' though.

Yes, that is exactly the point.

[BlodwynPig]

genuinely would like to punch john redwood so hard in the face his skull caves in

CAVEAT: but i will not because I am in lockdown

[monkfromhavana]

Back to us all getting a dose of what the Scots got. As long as Labour are slightly less shit than the Tories they will just take our vote for granted. It's a great position for them to be in, they can say all the right things (up to a point) in the media getting the gullible onside, but in reality do fuck all about it whilst no doubt raking in some nice money from donors, getting their profile raised and suckling on the teat of the public purse.

If there was an election tomorrow, I'd vote for Starmer. That is all the Labour party now want of me. They're now free to position themselves as Tory-lite to win over the Brexiteers, racists, thick and xenophobe whilst letting the Overton window loose to swing back to the right. Things will get better for the desperate, they will probably no longer die, but will be kept on eternal life-support

It isn't about wanting the party to be "ideologically pure" as i don't think that the types of the people in the upper echelons in the Labour party now have any ideology. They let the Tories worry about things like that as, ultimately, their position in UK politics is slightly to the left that. Ideologically shackled and subservient to the party of eternal rule. It will win them elections, but let's not kid ourselves that any radical absolutely necessary change will happen. They will still have their ideology set for them by the Tories, their supporters and billionaires.

Solutions? If a new party is founded, it will have to do so without a large portion of the members, no infrastructure, no Union support and will probably be accused of all the same things the Corbyn-led Labour party was, but also with splitting the "left" vote and "having blood on our hands" by allowing the Tories to win. If we stay, I have no doubt there will be nary a bone chucked to us by the Labour leadership. maybe some gristle. I think the structures that lead to Corbyn getting power will be dismantled, making it very difficult for it to happen again in the next 30 years.

The other "hope"? That the swathes of the country that voted Tory for the first time get a taste for it. They continue to vote Tory and let them win by huge margins. That *might* lead to some questioning within the Labour party as to their direction. Or it might lead to a never-ending churn of Labour leaders, spiralling deeper and deeper into mediocrity until 2038 when Mike Gapes is the leader and the Labour party are calling for public hangings for the crimes of not saluting the Union Jack within enough patriotic zeal.