Labour Party Desolation v3: Abstainence Makes the Farce Grow Stronger

[Buelligan]

The left boards I follow say that those polled are Labourlist members who are generally right leaning in Labour.

All I can suggest is, check out the answers to Q's32-36 in that survey.

https://cdn.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/26143548/Labour-List-Labour-Members-Survey.pdf

[ZoyzaSorris]

Anyone understand what trenter is on about half the time? No offence meant but he gives me a headache these days.

[TrenterPercenter]

To claim this has been a massive win is both extremely premature and rather crass.

Crass? I'm not happy about it?! and I'm not saying it is a long lasting win i'm saying Starmers action not being polled to be largely out of step with a majority of members (it's a 50-50 divisive issue) will be chalked up as a massive win for Starmer.

Anyone understand what trenter is on about half the time? No offence meant but he gives me a headache these days.

Back to this stuff I see.  Always the same borderline bullying approach where the person that is being spoken about isn't even addressed.  I see you. [nb]Same stuff is used against BAME groups and women all the time btw "sorry can anyone understand what X is saying?"[/nb]

As ever please let me know what you are struggling to understand, be specific and I'll happily explain further.

[NoSleep]

Still whatever the case who is there to replace him.  No one on the left.

FFS. There's no-one to replace Corbyn, but Starmer has to be ousted, regardless, and somebody put in to stop the current rot.

[TrenterPercenter]

FFS. There's no-one to replace Corbyn, but Starmer has to be ousted, regardless, and somebody put in to stop the current rot.

There was people to replace Corbyn, he was replaced. I am lamenting the fact we haven't a got a leftwing candidate that can give Starmer competition, again I'm not happy about it.

[NoSleep]

Pretend not to understand what I said, then.

[TrenterPercenter]

Pretend not to understand what I said, then.

I'm not pretending? Could you explain it a bit more so that I can reply and not have you feel i'm ignoring what you were getting at?

[Buelligan]

It's pretty obvious, my interpretation anyway, is that he's saying (correctly) that you can't just replace Corbyn.  Corbyn was once in a lifetime stuff.  There are no substitutes.

[Sebastian Cobb]

That was my understanding, I wouldn't agree, given there probably were people who could've followed in his footsteps but this is all academic given the moment has passed regardless and the functional outcome is the same.

[colacentral]

He's not perfect, and I know we've gone over him before, but Clive Lewis has said good things about member democracy and looking to bin FPTP, and from what I've seen he's mostly been on Corbyn's side on the issue of the whip. Whether he supports everything we'd want him to, I don't know, but he doesn't come across as a careerist the way Starmer blatantly always did. I'm sure he'd beat him comfortably in a leadership challenge too. I think enough of the genuine "moderate" membership (meaning the naive people who buy into the electability crap and read the guardian, rather than the corrupt right wing pretending to be moderate) would see him as a good compromise too.

His election chances are not really the issue, it's just important to have a leader who genuinely listens to what members want.

[Buelligan]

Would you trust him more or less than Nadia Whittome?  And that's the problem.  Corbyn had form.  Starmer, Lewis, Whittome, not so much.

[pigamus]

That was my understanding, I wouldn't agree, given there probably were people who could've followed in his footsteps but this is all academic given the moment has passed regardless and the functional outcome is the same.

Well there was clearly an heir apparent but she lost her seat.

[colacentral]

Would you trust him more or less than Nadia Whittome?  And that's the problem.  Corbyn had form.  Starmer, Lewis, Whittome, not so much.

Good point, it's impossible to say, but from what I've seen he's stuck his neck out a few times when he didn't need to. It's more that democratising both the party and our national voting system genuinely appears to be a pet passion of his, and that appeals to me; more importantly if he's being honest about that, it empowers us.

[Buelligan]

I agree with all of that but do I trust him?  Not a bit.  He's got too much ego and not enough solidarity for my liking.

[TrenterPercenter]

That was my understanding, I wouldn't agree, given there probably were people who could've followed in his footsteps but this is all academic given the moment has passed regardless and the functional outcome is the same.

I understood this but the fact still remains he was replaced, he is no longer the leader of the Labour party and me, myself, that raised the inital point was talking quite clearly about how Starmer has a lack of competition to replace him. That would be by an election that someone else would have to win to replace him.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I guess, if these accusations are true, sticking necks out unnecessarily are unfortunately part of the play these days. I can't comment on Lewis, he seems alright from what I've passively absorbed, which is very little.

[TrenterPercenter]

He's not perfect, and I know we've gone over him before, but Clive Lewis has said good things about member democracy and looking to bin FPTP, and from what I've seen he's mostly been on Corbyn's side on the issue of the whip.

Yes Clive Lewis is the most hopefully, he criticsed Corbyn over AS though so lots of leftists instantly have dismissed him.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I'd have Burgon or Butler but even settle for Thornberry over Starmer at the moment.

Yes of course.

But what Labour needs to be is a reflection of its members and achieving that requires accountability, the blessed quality by which democracy starts working for normal people.

At this point I'd be in favour of anyone - even relatively centrist economically and so forth - who made an unequivocal commitment to reforming the party to enshrine open selection of MPs, ending the job for life idea, ending the career ladder for second third jobs, directorships, buy to let empires and so on.

This is what MPs fear and what MPs hate because if their CLP can hold them to account they will have to act with integrity and serve their local party and their constituents or face their wrath.

If a candidate comes alone guaranteeing that will be a top priority then I am happy accepting a shitty boss, because they will have unlocked the door to the whole kingdom.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

he criticsed Corbyn over AS in an unfair, untrue, cowardly and despicable way that sets the whole party and the Left back though so lots of leftists instantly have dismissed him.

Included the relevant data and removed the untruth.

[colacentral]

Yes of course.

But what Labour needs to be is a reflection of its members and achieving that requires accountability, the blessed quality by which democracy starts working for normal people.

At this point I'd be in favour of anyone - even relatively centrist economically and so forth - who made an unequivocal commitment to reforming the party to enshrine open selection of MPs, ending the job for life idea, ending the career ladder for second third jobs, directorships, buy to let empires and so on.

This is what MPs fear and what MPs hate because if their CLP can hold them to account they will have to act with integrity and serve their local party and their constituents or face their wrath.

If a candidate comes alone guaranteeing that will be a top priority then I am happy accepting a shitty boss, because they will have unlocked the door to the whole kingdom.

Clive Lewis was saying this at the last leadership election, and I've a feeling that's why he didn't get enough nominations.

[NoSleep]

I understood this but the fact still remains he was replaced, he is no longer the leader of the Labour party and mem myself, that raised the inital point was talking quite clearly about how Starmer lack of competition to replace him. That would be by an election that someone else would have to win to replace him.

All Starmer lacked was the telling of truth; unfortunately his lies were swallowed by a large number of people who I believed should have seen him coming. There has been no replacement of Corbyn because that would imply that somehow he and Starmer are alike and that he would would have shat all over his legacy, too.

Starmer has to go before anymore damage is done.

[Buelligan]

I guess, if these accusations are true, sticking necks out unnecessarily are unfortunately part of the play these days. I can't comment on Lewis, he seems alright from what I've passively absorbed, which is very little.

There were a couple of things that put me off him.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clive-lewis-get-your-knees-video-momentum-labour-mp-event-party-conference-jess-philips-a8011381.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/26/labour-clear-on-trident-renewal-says-shadow-defence-secretary-clive-lewis-nato

[NoSleep]

Yes of course.

But what Labour needs to be is a reflection of its members and achieving that requires accountability, the blessed quality by which democracy starts working for normal people.

At this point I'd be in favour of anyone - even relatively centrist economically and so forth - who made an unequivocal commitment to reforming the party to enshrine open selection of MPs, ending the job for life idea, ending the career ladder for second third jobs, directorships, buy to let empires and so on.

This is what MPs fear and what MPs hate because if their CLP can hold them to account they will have to act with integrity and serve their local party and their constituents or face their wrath.

If a candidate comes alone guaranteeing that will be a top priority then I am happy accepting a shitty boss, because they will have unlocked the door to the whole kingdom.

"Democracy" hahahahahahaha. Lied to get in so he could destroy democracy and real hope asap. The Trilateral Decommissioner.

[TrenterPercenter]

Included the relevant data and removed the untruth.

This is demented. 

[Buelligan]

I'm not sure you should cast aspersions on Shoulders' mental health.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Maybe this is the wider, non-party wedge issue we need to break through?

A pressure campaign with cross party support lobbying for urgent reform and accountability of MPs. It would be massively popular in old left areas and help realign them to Labour. It would also smoke out who are the self-serving crooks and who are the actual members representing their constituents.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I'm not sure you should cast aspersions on Shoulders' mental health.

It's fine. If he could disagree in such a way as to prove or even convincingly argue what I was saying fit that description, he'd have managed it.

[TrenterPercenter]

All Starmer lacked was the telling of truth; unfortunately his lies were swallowed by a large number of people who I believed should have seen him coming. There has been no replacement of Corbyn because that would imply that somehow he and Starmer are alike and that he would would have shat all over his legacy, too.

Starmer has to go before anymore damage is done.

I understand this, I think this is down to replacement meaning different things in our two contexts.

I'm talking about pracitically replacing him......which means precipitating and winning a leadership election.  Precipitating that leadership election means the membership and the PLP have to be very unhappy with him and he has just done one of the most controversial things a leader can do yet only 48% of members think it was wrong.

[TrenterPercenter]

I'm not sure you should cast aspersions on Shoulders' mental health.

Nope sorry.  Not interested in you.

[NoSleep]

I understand this, I think this is down to replacement meaning different things in our two contexts.

I'm talking about pracitically replacing him......which means precipitating and winning a leadership election.  Precipitating that leadership election means the membership and the PLP have to be very unhappy with him and he has just done one of the most controversial things a leader can do yet only 48% of members think it was wrong.

Why have your replies to me recently always been a lecture about the meaning of words I fully understand and use daily?