The future of the Labour Party

[Mibbes Aye]

In the last three Westminster elections;

2010: Labour 41 seats, SNP 6.
2015: Labour 1 SNP 56.
2019: Labour 1 SNP 46.

The 2015 cataclysm preceded both Corbyn and Brexit, so that analysis is lacking historical perspective.

There was a general election in 2017.

Corbyn was an absolute shambles of a LOTO, lacking intelligence or drive. He never wanted to be leader, he wanted to be in his Islington flat, wearing a peaked cap and playing the guitar badly to commemorate Salvador Allende.

For those of us who have been real members for a long while, it is chastening. A good reminder that in this country, small-c conservatism is a powerful social dynamic. Labour wins when it plays to the middle, then in power it tacks left while trying to do good things under the radar.

The most progressive legislation we ever had in this country was under Labour but it was only ever through large majorities, or when there was a real sense of societal and cultural change.

[hibsbollah]

There was a general election in 2017.

Corbyn was an absolute shambles of a LOTO, lacking intelligence or drive. He never wanted to be leader, he wanted to be in his Islington flat, wearing a peaked cap and playing the guitar badly to commemorate Salvador Allende.

For those of us who have been real members for a long while, it is chastening. A good reminder that in this country, small-c conservatism is a powerful social dynamic. Labour wins when it plays to the middle, then in power it tacks left while trying to do good things under the radar.

The most progressive legislation we ever had in this country was under Labour but it was only ever through large majorities, or when there was a real sense of societal and cultural change.

None of this from you is in any way surprising, I think the Allende imagery you’ve done before. I’m just surprised the Seamus Milne ‘swivel eyed loon’ gag hasn’t been trotted out again, although I note you’ve dropped any further mention of your admiration for Dominic Cummings, but that’s not great optics at the moment for a ‘real Labour’ member I suppose :greengrin

The analysis in the Times article was that Labour failed because of Corbyn, Brexit and an inability to deal with the Union question. But that doesn’t explain why we we’d fallen from generations of being the preeminent party in Scotland to wipeout in 2015. I want Labour to be far more than Ian Murray prancing about Morningside Road in a tartan suit, but that requires some clear thinking, and an end to factional infighting that the current leader is talking quite eloquently about.

[Pretty Boy]

None of this from you is in any way surprising, I think the Allende imagery you’ve done before. I’m just surprised the Seamus Milne ‘swivel eyed loon’ gag hasn’t been trotted out again, although I note you’ve dropped any further mention of your admiration for Dominic Cummings, but that’s not great optics at the moment for a ‘real Labour’ member I suppose :greengrin

The analysis in the Times article was that Labour failed because of Corbyn, Brexit and an inability to deal with the Union question. But that doesn’t explain why we we’d fallen from generations of being the preeminent party in Scotland to wipeout in 2015. I want Labour to be far more than Ian Murray prancing about Morningside Road in a tartan suit, but that requires some clear thinking, and an end to factional infighting that the current leader is talking quite eloquently about.

I think the backing the union point is the key one, at least when it comes to explaining the initial collapse in the vote.

I believe many could have accepted Labour backing the no vote but the enthusiasm with which they did it was quite disconcerting. Whilst the main players were quite measured there was a real relish among some when it came to putting the boot into Scotland and talking us down. The imagery of Labour activists and politicians high fiving Tories is unlikely to have helped irrespective of the fact it probably wasn't all that widespread.

The backlash may have been borne out of anger but the SNP played a blinder. The White paper was a soft left wish list and people, particularly younger people, who had followed family tradition and always voted Labour were drawn to it. Labour spoke a lot about listening but showed scant evidence they were actually doing so. Len McCluskey stating after the last election defeat that they hadn't been pro union enough sums it up really.

I said on another thread recently that the SNP are in an enviably strong position. They have a hardcore vote who will put their X in the SNP box regardless of anything they do because they are die hard nationalists. Where I think Corbyn, and more pressingly Leonard, come into play is that there has been no sign they could or can land a blow on the ever canny Sturgeon and her popularity. Corbyn struck a chord with exactly who you would have expected him to in England (and alienated many other trad Labour areas but that's another story) however he never really reached Scotland. He gained about 10K votes in Scotland between 2015 and 2017 and lost 200K in 2019. However it's dressed up that's a disaster on a a personal and party level and at least in part can be attributed to competing with the SNP for the anti Brexit vote without having anything like the same conviction. I'll add the SNP seem acutely aware they are attracting displaced Labour voters. The fact they spent much of their early years posts 2015 attacking Labour as often as the incumbent Tories is testament to that.

The upcoming Holyrood elections is a huge test for Starmer. He needs to thrown the kitchen sink at it to avoid the SNP regaining their majority, which is a distinct possibility. A central message of 'we want you back and we' ll do what it takes' and talking to rather than at Scotland would be a start.

[JeMeSouviens]

I haven't seen the report so I don't know if it mentions it but imo Labour stored up trouble for itself by treating Holyrood as a second division dumping ground for its no hopers that they didn't think would make it in the "real parliament" at Westminster. Support was already draining away from them; losing Lib/Lab majority at Holyrood in 2007, the SNP actually gaining one on their own in 2011. The indyref just accelerated what was already happening by making more people notice what a shambles the Scottish branch had become.

[Mibbes Aye]

None of this from you is in any way surprising, I think the Allende imagery you’ve done before. I’m just surprised the Seamus Milne ‘swivel eyed loon’ gag hasn’t been trotted out again, although I note you’ve dropped any further mention of your admiration for Dominic Cummings, but that’s not great optics at the moment for a ‘real Labour’ member I suppose :greengrin

The analysis in the Times article was that Labour failed because of Corbyn, Brexit and an inability to deal with the Union question. But that doesn’t explain why we we’d fallen from generations of being the preeminent party in Scotland to wipeout in 2015. I want Labour to be far more than Ian Murray prancing about Morningside Road in a tartan suit, but that requires some clear thinking, and an end to factional infighting that the current leader is talking quite eloquently about.

Bit touchy, no? Seamas is gone, thankfully. I still struggle with how you use the word ‘we’ when you posted that Labour had never done anything progressive since Attlee.

[Kato]

None of this from you is in any way surprising, I think the Allende imagery you’ve done before. I’m just surprised the Seamus Milne ‘swivel eyed loon’ gag hasn’t been trotted out again, although I note you’ve dropped any further mention of your admiration for Dominic Cummings, but that’s not great optics at the moment for a ‘real Labour’ member I suppose :greengrin

The analysis in the Times article was that Labour failed because of Corbyn, Brexit and an inability to deal with the Union question. But that doesn’t explain why we we’d fallen from generations of being the preeminent party in Scotland to wipeout in 2015. I want Labour to be far more than Ian Murray prancing about Morningside Road in a tartan suit, but that requires some clear thinking, and an end to factional infighting that the current leader is talking quite eloquently about.I've never seen Murray prancing in a tartan suit. He prefers prancing in his Union Jack two piece, no?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Bit touchy, no? Seamas is gone, thankfully. I still struggle with how you use the word ‘we’ when you posted that Labour had never done anything progressive since Attlee.

It’s hard to be sure because that thread was years and years ago, but I think I said something about successive Labour governments leaving me feeling disappointed. Atlee was the high water mark. If there’s a future ‘giants of the British Labour movement’ thread I will contribute and steer clear of unnecessary hyperbole.

[Mibbes Aye]

It’s hard to be sure because that thread was years and years ago, but I think I said something about successive Labour governments leaving me feeling disappointed. Atlee was the high water mark. If there’s a future ‘giants of the British Labour movement’ thread I will contribute and steer clear of unnecessary hyperbole.

It actually wasn’t that long ago but I won’t bring it up again.

I think there is an interesting argument about Attlee not being progressive as such - the welfare state argument was made by a Liberal and the post-war consensus meant that there was pressure on all, Tories included, to support the NHS.

And we can’t claim that the legislation that outlawed racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, unequal pay, promoted health and safety at work, brought in the minimum wage, civil partnerships and child and pensioner tax credits was disappointing, or lacked being progressive.

As ever, there is a lot of nuance to these things!

[Mibbes Aye]

Pleasing to see David Evans being appointed general secretary. He is competent and has experience. It also signals a shift away from the self-indulgent entryists and the unelectable.

[Bristolhibby]

I think the backing the union point is the key one, at least when it comes to explaining the initial collapse in the vote.

I believe many could have accepted Labour backing the no vote but the enthusiasm with which they did it was quite disconcerting. Whilst the main players were quite measured there was a real relish among some when it came to putting the boot into Scotland and talking us down. The imagery of Labour activists and politicians high fiving Tories is unlikely to have helped irrespective of the fact it probably wasn't all that widespread.

The backlash may have been borne out of anger but the SNP played a blinder. The White paper was a soft left wish list and people, particularly younger people, who had followed family tradition and always voted Labour were drawn to it. Labour spoke a lot about listening but showed scant evidence they were actually doing so. Len McCluskey stating after the last election defeat that they hadn't been pro union enough sums it up really.

I said on another thread recently that the SNP are in an enviably strong position. They have a hardcore vote who will put their X in the SNP box regardless of anything they do because they are die hard nationalists. Where I think Corbyn, and more pressingly Leonard, come into play is that there has been no sign they could or can land a blow on the ever canny Sturgeon and her popularity. Corbyn struck a chord with exactly who you would have expected him to in England (and alienated many other trad Labour areas but that's another story) however he never really reached Scotland. He gained about 10K votes in Scotland between 2015 and 2017 and lost 200K in 2019. However it's dressed up that's a disaster on a a personal and party level and at least in part can be attributed to competing with the SNP for the anti Brexit vote without having anything like the same conviction. I'll add the SNP seem acutely aware they are attracting displaced Labour voters. The fact they spent much of their early years posts 2015 attacking Labour as often as the incumbent Tories is testament to that.

The upcoming Holyrood elections is a huge test for Starmer. He needs to thrown the kitchen sink at it to avoid the SNP regaining their majority, which is a distinct possibility. A central message of 'we want you back and we' ll do what it takes' and talking to rather than at Scotland would be a start.

IMHO Labour in Scotland are like Germany during WW2.

They are fighting on too many fronts. The messages that resonate in England (Brexit, more consevertive) ignore the biggest Political issue in Scotland, Independence.

They can’t attract consevertive England and get back SNP voting ex-Labour.

This is crazy, imagine if they vault faced and supported independence? They really could be in power forever in an Independent Scotland.

They could have a loose friendly relationship with a centrist like Starmer. But govern as a Left leaning totally independent Scottish Labour.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

I wouldn’t overthink it. There is an aphorism about when the population needs a father it votes to the right, when it needs a mother it votes to the left. It is heading towards needing a mother.

The differential in Scotland is the whole independence thing. In actual practice the SNP have shown to be slightly centre right IMO. Not a criticism, just an opinion. Game on, but Scottish Labour need to shift Richard Leonard, he looks like a stunt actor for Hugh Abbott from The Thick Of It.

[JeMeSouviens]

I wouldn’t overthink it. There is an aphorism about when the population needs a father it votes to the right, when it needs a mother it votes to the left. It is heading towards needing a mother.

The differential in Scotland is the whole independence thing. In actual practice the SNP have shown to be slightly centre right IMO. Not a criticism, just an opinion. Game on, but Scottish Labour need to shift Richard Leonard, he looks like a stunt actor for Hugh Abbott from The Thick Of It.

If you think NuLab was centre right then maybe. They certainly talk further left than they walk.

[Mibbes Aye]

If you think NuLab was centre right then maybe. They certainly talk further left than they walk.

Do you mean New Labour under Blair, and domestically really under Brown?

I would argue that they talked to the middle and put policy to the left, under the guise of being centrist.

Minimum wage was so controversial yet we got it. Child and pension tax credits raised millions out of poverty. The first Blair term was about giving confidence to middle England, The second term was turning on the spending taps and trying to fix the mess that was inherited from eighteen years of Keith Joseph approaches to how to manage the public sector.

[JeMeSouviens]

Do you mean New Labour under Blair, and domestically really under Brown?

I would argue that they talked to the middle and put policy to the left, under the guise of being centrist.

Minimum wage was so controversial yet we got it. Child and pension tax credits raised millions out of poverty. The first Blair term was about giving confidence to middle England, The second term was turning on the spending taps and trying to fix the mess that was inherited from eighteen years of Keith Joseph approaches to how to manage the public sector.

Laudable in many respects but they also allowed inequality to flourish.

It’s difficult to compare a devolved “government” with a real sovereign one but the SNP have been a big let down on things they previously talked a good game on like land reform.

I don’t remember the Dewar or McConnell Scot Lab administrations being in any way radical either mind you.

[Pretty Boy]

Do you mean New Labour under Blair, and domestically really under Brown?

I would argue that they talked to the middle and put policy to the left, under the guise of being centrist.

Minimum wage was so controversial yet we got it. Child and pension tax credits raised millions out of poverty. The first Blair term was about giving confidence to middle England, The second term was turning on the spending taps and trying to fix the mess that was inherited from eighteen years of Keith Joseph approaches to how to manage the public sector.

I think there's sometimes a tendency within Labour to focus on what New Labour didn't achieve rather than what they did.

Of course there were failings, some absolutely huge and obvious ones, but there was also a lot to be proud of. Much of it wasn't radical but the minimum wage, civil partnerships, devolution,fragile peace in NI, a reduction in relative poverty, the human rights act, the removal of hereditary peers and many others were all worthy of note. In her critique of New Labour Polly Toynbee contends (maybe that should read concedes) that Blairs first term was arguably rivalled only by Wilson in terms of redistribiting wealth. Of course that doesn't mean you ignore the mistakes; I would argue the biggest flaw came when 'Blairism' became an ideology in itself (I'll concede that thought process is influenced by Toynbee as well).

Aside from anything else Labour under Blair were popular, even after one of the most unpopular acts in recent political history he still returned a sizeable majority. Had Charles Kennedy and his incarnation of the Lib Dems not proven so popular it would arguably have been larger still.

Of course it's a different world in so many ways from 1997, even 2005 feels and looks like a lifetime ago. However I think there is much Labour can learn from that time; emulate what worked and improve what didn't.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think there's sometimes a tendency within Labour to focus on what New Labour didn't achieve rather than what they did.

Of course there were failings, some absolutely huge and obvious ones, but there was also a lot to be proud of. Much of it wasn't radical but the minimum wage, civil partnerships, devolution,fragile peace in NI, a reduction in relative poverty, the human rights act, the removal of hereditary peers and many others were all worthy of note. In her critique of New Labour Polly Toynbee contends (maybe that should read concedes) that Blairs first term was arguably rivalled only by Wilson in terms of redistribiting wealth. Of course that doesn't mean you ignore the mistakes; I would argue the biggest flaw came when 'Blairism' became an ideology in itself (I'll concede that thought process is influenced by Toynbee as well).

Aside from anything else Labour under Blair were popular, even after one of the most unpopular acts in recent political history he still returned a sizeable majority. Had Charles Kennedy and his incarnation of the Lib Dems not proven so popular it would arguably have been larger still.

Of course it's a different world in so many ways from 1997, even 2005 feels and looks like a lifetime ago. However I think there is much Labour can learn from that time; emulate what worked and improve what didn't.

The redistribution part doesn’t ring true at all. Borrowing from the rich to give to the poor and paying the rich back at long term healthy returns is hardly Robin Hood.

You also have to remember that the Tories were an absolute shambles in 01 and 05. I mean IDS ffs.

[Mibbes Aye]

Laudable in many respects but they also allowed inequality to flourish.

It’s difficult to compare a devolved “government” with a real sovereign one but the SNP have been a big let down on things they previously talked a good game on like land reform.

I don’t remember the Dewar or McConnell Scot Lab administrations being in any way radical either mind you.

Off the top of my head there was a raft of legislation around mental health and capacity that was human rights-based and England is still catching up on. This was to the extent that the phrase ‘Scottish approach to public sector reform’ became a well-used and recognised phrase. There was big investment in piloting new models of health and social care through the Joint Improvement Team. And some of the earliest legislation included the Land Reform Act. I might be mistaken but I think the first piece of legislation was to outlaw women being stopped from breast feeding in public or in shops, restaurants etc. I will settle for ‘progressive’ and forego arguing whether it was ‘radical’, but in reality, the point I made about mental health and capacity probably was, because it took a starting point based on how to least intervene, rather than just setting powers to intervene.

[JeMeSouviens]

Off the top of my head there was a raft of legislation around mental health and capacity that was human rights-based and England is still catching up on. This was to the extent that the phrase ‘Scottish approach to public sector reform’ became a well-used and recognised phrase. There was big investment in piloting new models of health and social care through the Joint Improvement Team. And some of the earliest legislation included the Land Reform Act. I might be mistaken but I think the first piece of legislation was to outlaw women being stopped from breast feeding in public or in shops, restaurants etc. I will settle for ‘progressive’ and forego arguing whether it was ‘radical’, but in reality, the point I made about mental health and capacity probably was, because it took a starting point based on how to least intervene, rather than just setting powers to intervene.

I think that's a fair assessment but I don't see how it makes them any more "progressive" than the SNP administrations that have followed have been?

Before you mention it, I agree about the council tax freeze!

I think we're splitting hairs anyway. I would put the SNP at talks centre-left, is actually bang in the centre and New Labour at talked slightly centre-right but was actually bang in the centre or a smidgen to the left?

[Mibbes Aye]

I think that's a fair assessment but I don't see how it makes them any more "progressive" than the SNP administrations that have followed have been?

Before you mention it, I agree about the council tax freeze!

I think we're splitting hairs anyway. I would put the SNP at talks centre-left, is actually bang in the centre and New Labour at talked slightly centre-right but was actually bang in the centre or a smidgen to the left?

Wont find much disagreement from me. At the risk of creating apoplexy amongst some, I have posted a few times saying that since the SNP have been in power there have been progressive pieces of legislation in the social policy arena. The ‘Scottish approach’ I mentioned has a lot of buy-in from civil servants, academics and the third sector, and attracts international interest and none of the politicians are stupid enough to ignore that

[weecounty hibby]

Just imagine you two guys working together in an independent Scotland to make a better future for us all. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. It is a possibility but we need to make it happen. The problem in England is that terms of Labour government then leads to even longer terms of Tory government after

[Ozyhibby]

Just imagine you two guys working together in an independent Scotland to make a better future for us all. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. It is a possibility but we need to make it happen. The problem in England is that terms of Labour government then leads to even longer terms of Tory government after

[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HibernianJK]

As others have mentioned I would quite easily vote for a left leaning Labour Party in an indy scotland. Until that chance happens all my weight is getting thrown behind the SNP to make indy happen. Would love to see a Labour led indy scotland though.

[The Harp Awakes]

As others have mentioned I would quite easily vote for a left leaning Labour Party in an indy scotland. Until that chance happens all my weight is getting thrown behind the SNP to make indy happen. Would love to see a Labour led indy scotland though.

Agreed.

[The Harp Awakes]

Ian Murray's performance on Question Time tonight sums up why the Labour Party are in auch a state. He spent the entire show having a pop at the Scottish Government, without laying a glove on Bufoon Boris and his Westminster circus.

He couldn't even be bothered saying much about the question on the Dominic Cummings fiasco, and instead turned his answer into having another pop at the Scottish Government.

Not taking the Tories to account is why Labour have failed miserably over decades. Nobody knows what they stand for any more.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Ian Murray's performance on Question Time tonight sums up why the Labour Party are in auch a state. He spent the entire show having a pop at the Scottish Government, without laying a glove on Bufoon Boris and his Westminster circus.

He couldn't even be bothered saying much about the question on the Dominic Cummings fiasco, and instead turned his answer into having another pop at the Scottish Government.

Not taking the Tories to account is why Labour have failed miserably over decades. Nobody knows what they stand for any more.

Indeed :agree: I noticed that as well, the first question from the audience was unsurprisingly about Cummings and Murray immediately made it about the Nike conference in Edinburgh. Its flogging a dead horse, not because what happened after it may not have been handled as well as it could have been, but because weeks after it had happened and with known cases of the virus already confirmed in England the UK government allowed 3000 people to travel to Liverpool from one of the worst affected countries in Europe and allowed 300,000 people to attend the Cheltenham festival, with no track and trace procedure in place whatsoever .. which was not the case after the Nike conference, where at least some T & T attempt was made.

Its the same with care homes ..... with hindsight perhaps the Scottish government's strategy of moving elderly non clinical patients from hospitals into care homes was a bad move, but nobody, incredibly not even Alex Massie on QT last night who sympathised with the move, can honestly say it wasn't done with the best of intentions given the very real fear at the time that the hospitals could become overwhelmed with Covid 19 patients as they had been in Spain and Italy.

The argument here from unionists like Murray and Carlaw is that Scotland's percentage of care home deaths exceeds that of England, but they know full well that England's care home deaths from Covid 19 have been grossly underestimated and for weeks badly reported. Deaths per head of general population in England exceed the figures for Scotland and the UK's exceed every country in the world outside of America and yet they expect us to believe that they have handled care home mortality better than Scotland, not to mention practically every other badly affected country in Europe ... not a chance can that be true. A wee hint being the 10,000 plus extra deaths in English care homes for the month of April 2020 compared to the 4 previous Aprils that were allegedly non Covid 19 related .... who the hell is going to swallow that?

Yes the Scottish government are open to criticism for a policy which may be found to have been wrong when this is all over, but the point here if you are going to politicise Covid 19 is has the Scottish government overall done a better or worse job than the UK government? .... This is after all about whether or not Scotland would be better off as an independent nation. It's their rabid opposition to that which has unionist politicians queuing up both at Westminster and Holyrood to highlight every failing, real or imaginary, of the SNP Scottish government in an attempt to show that being in the UK is better for us, and if that means ignoring facts which show Scotland in relation to the parts of the UK run by Westminster actually has done better then that's exactly what they will do ... and have been doing.

Labour and the Tories in Scotland have long since binned the idea that 'you should't politicise the virus' ... so I for one have no reservations in saying what I've witnessed over the last 3 months has utterly hardened an already solid view that Scotland would be far better off as an independent country. And I'm happy to say that the most recent opinion polls clearly show far more people moving towards that point of view :aok:

[JeMeSouviens]

Couple of new polls.

Opinium - Con +4, 8 pt swing to Lab
Yougov - Con +6, 9 pt swing to Lab

[Mr Grieves]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-toughen-opposition-indyref2-22138985.amp?__twitter_impression=true :titanic:

[G B Young]

Damage of the Corbyn era laid bare:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/18/dysfunctional-toxic-culture-led-to-labour-defeat-major-report-finds

[JeMeSouviens]

Keir Starmer gets tough by firing RLB after she tweeted an endorsement of an article by the actress, Maxine Peake.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/maxine-peake-interview-labour-corbyn-keir-starmer-black-lives-matter-a9583206.html

[lapsedhibee]

Keir Starmer gets tough by firing RLB after she tweeted an endorsement of an article by the actress, Maxine Peake.


Oh dear. Johnson won't be able to call Starmer indecisive again at next week's PMQs. He'll just have to make all six answers about Starmer having been a lawyer.

[JeMeSouviens]

Apparently this is the bit that caused it - cheeky anti-semitic conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:


“Systemic racism is a global issue,” she adds. “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.” (A spokesperson for the Israeli police has denied this, stating that “there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway”.)

[Future17]

Apparently this is the bit that caused it - cheeky anti-semitic conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

Surely not? :confused:

[hibsbollah]

Keir Starmer gets tough by firing RLB after she tweeted an endorsement of an article by the actress, Maxine Peake.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/maxine-peake-interview-labour-corbyn-keir-starmer-black-lives-matter-a9583206.html

Criticising Israel is tough to do in the current climate. Even under the strict current guidance I can’t see how it’s anti Semitic, even if what she said about Mossad is inaccurate.

But in the wider context of making Labour electable, it’s probably a sensible political thing to do, even though it’s incredibly harsh on RLB as an individual. It also puts clear blue water between him and Johnson, who seems incapable of any kind of party discipline at all.

Labour sacks shadow minister for ill advised tweet. Tories refuse to sack minister for corruption in public office. It’s good optics for Starmer.

[G B Young]

Keir Starmer gets tough by firing RLB after she tweeted an endorsement of an article by the actress, Maxine Peake.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/maxine-peake-interview-labour-corbyn-keir-starmer-black-lives-matter-a9583206.html


I thought you were kidding but I see it's right enough:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53183085

I'd suggest Starmer was reluctant to appoint her to his shadow cabinet in the first place given her Corbynista credentials, but had made a pact with her and Nandy during the leadership campaign. Might be wrong but this feels like he's seized on an unexpectedly early chance to get rid of her and keep steering Labour away from the hard left.

She's been a bit daft here. However, you could argue that anyone who gave Corbyn '10 out of 10' for leadership is a little dim.

[Rocky]

Apparently this is the bit that caused it - cheeky anti-semitic conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:
I just read the whole article to try to find the anti-semitic part and that's the only bit I could see that came close. It seems a bit of a stretch tbh, seems like Long Bailey is paying the price for past dithering.

[lapsedhibee]

seems like Long Bailey is paying the price for past dithering.

And at the same time giving Starmer an opportunity to look prime ministerial, in stark contrast to the overpromoted rubber bath toy.

[Rocky]

And at the same time giving Starmer an opportunity to look prime ministerial, in stark contrast to the overpromoted rubber bath toy.
Rubber bath toy is good but have to say I'm a big fan of "Like a sheepdog shouting at a helicopter through a fence"

https://twitter.com/Dempster2000/status/1275809024450199552?s=20

[marinello59]

Apparently this is the bit that caused it - cheeky anti-semitic conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

To call that anti-semitic is a bit of a stretch.

[JeMeSouviens]

Criticising Israel is tough to do in the current climate. Even under the strict current guidance I can’t see how it’s anti Semitic, even if what she said about Mossad is inaccurate.

But in the wider context of making Labour electable, it’s probably a sensible political thing to do, even though it’s incredibly harsh on RLB as an individual. It also puts clear blue water between him and Johnson, who seems incapable of any kind of party discipline at all.

Labour sacks shadow minister for ill advised tweet. Tories refuse to sack minister for corruption in public office. It’s good optics for Starmer.

It's not in your face but I think the US-Israeli-evil-capitalist-zionist-linkup conspiracy insinuation type of thing is there.

[JeMeSouviens]

To call that anti-semitic is a bit of a stretch.

There is a certain section of the hard left who view the US as the evil, capitalist enemy and racist police killing an innocent black man is an embodiment of that. Now throw in a foreign power conspiring to teach them new evil ways. Why pick Israel?

[Ozyhibby]

I just read the whole article to try to find the anti-semitic part and that's the only bit I could see that came close. It seems a bit of a stretch tbh, seems like Long Bailey is paying the price for past dithering.

Might have had a bit of a defence if it had been true but as it’s total BS then it looks like another anti Semitic conspiracy theory. There are plenty reasons to criticise Israel without having to make things up. This is a good move by Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tomsk]

Interesting times. This isn't just any old shadow cabinet member thrown under a bus. She's a high-profile, dyed-in-the-wool, old-school leftie, welded to the failed Corbynite wing of the party. Starmer clearly believes he has already garnered enough political capital in his account to sack her. Strong message - I am in charge, no more Jeremy, no more anti-Semites.

[H18 SFR]

I just read the whole article to try to find the anti-semitic part and that's the only bit I could see that came close. It seems a bit of a stretch tbh, seems like Long Bailey is paying the price for past dithering.

LBC were saying there that the Independent have edited the article and removed the said section.

[marinello59]

There is a certain section of the hard left who view the US as the evil, capitalist enemy and racist police killing an innocent black man is an embodiment of that. Now throw in a foreign power conspiring to teach them new evil ways. Why pick Israel?

Having re-read it several times then it wasn’t to smart sharing that at all.

[Rocky]

LBC were saying there that the Independent have edited the article and removed the said section.
There seem to have been multiple edits - the correction note I read earlier referred to an Amnesty International report from 2016 about US police receiving training from Israeli security services - the thrust of that correction seemed to be that they did receive training but it didn't involve neck kneeling. I'm really not sure what was originally shared now, and what's subsequently been changed.

[neil7908]

It's not in your face but I think the US-Israeli-evil-capitalist-zionist-linkup conspiracy insinuation type of thing is there.

But RLB didn't actually make the comment, there were loads of things covered in the article she tweeted.

This is a very cold political decision by Starmer and one he wouldn't be making if an ally of his was under the microscope.

Whilst this will be put in down as "stamping out anti-semitism" it reads to me as removing any alternative voices in Labour.

[hibsbollah]

There is a certain section of the hard left who view the US as the evil, capitalist enemy and racist police killing an innocent black man is an embodiment of that. Now throw in a foreign power conspiring to teach them new evil ways. Why pick Israel?

Because Amnesty International was the source of the original Guardian story, and was in most aspects 100% accurate except for the neck hold bit.

[Ozyhibby]

But RLB didn't actually make the comment, there were loads of things covered in the article she tweeted.

This is a very cold political decision by Starmer and one he wouldn't be making if an ally of his was under the microscope.

Whilst this will be put in down as "stamping out anti-semitism" it reads to me as removing any alternative voices in Labour.

Given the problems Labour has had with anti-semitism, only a very stupid Labour mp would publicise this article. Don’t think Starmer would want very stupid people in the shadow cabinet. 100% the right decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

To call that anti-semitic is a bit of a stretch.


To sack somebody for retweeting a link to that article is ridiculous.

What Peak said was inaccurate but I'm struggling to see how it was anti-semitic. This MP then tweeted a iink to the article, of which the allegedly offensive comment was a pretty insignificant part.


I think anyone that is even perceived to be anti Israel will now be ejected from the Labour Party, so they can distance themselves from the controversy attached to the Corbyn era.

[neil7908]

To sack somebody for retweeting a link to that article is ridiculous.

What Peak said was inaccurate but I'm struggling to see how it was anti-semitic. This MP then tweeted a iink to the article, of which the allegedly offensive comment was a pretty insignificant part.


I think anyone that is even perceived to be anti Israel will now be ejected from the Labour Party, so they can distance themselves from the controversy attached to the Corbyn era.

Agreed. Sadly we will see no criticism of Israel under Starmer. I find it extremely frustrating that the Republicans, Tories and other parties on the right are able to get away with all manner of corruption and racism unchecked but for Labour are held to different standards.

[Beefster]

To call that anti-semitic is a bit of a stretch.

On its own, it’s not. As part of a larger wave of ‘Israel is bad’ narrative coming from certain aspects of the Labour Party, it’s much more problematic.

I read something on the BBC or Guardian that said that Long-Bailey was asked to remove her endorsement of the interview and refused. Fair enough but she must have known that there were inevitable consequences to that stance.

As hibsbollah said further up, optic-wise, it’s a great move by Starmer and puts him in direct contrast with the Tories trying to ride out storms, irrespective of how hypocritical or corrupt it makes them look.

[JeMeSouviens]

Because Amnesty International was the source of the original Guardian story, and was in most aspects 100% accurate except for the neck hold bit.

Ah, must admit I hadn't seen that. Mind you, having now seen the report, the US states sending police to Israel doesn't include Minnesota, so it looks like Maxine Peake still made a bit of a leap.

As you said before though, probably good politics from KS. He's simultaneously:

- being tough on anti-Semitism
- getting rid of a troublesome opponent with an excuse
- contrasting himself with Bozo/Jenrick
- showing he has a bit of a hard edge when he needs one

Not a bad day's work for the lad, all told.

[Rocky]

Ah, must admit I hadn't seen that. Mind you, having now seen the report, the US states sending police to Israel doesn't include Minnesota, so it looks like Maxine Peake still made a bit of a leap.

As you said before though, probably good politics from KS. He's simultaneously:

- being tough on anti-Semitism
- getting rid of a troublesome opponent with an excuse
- contrasting himself with Bozo/Jenrick
- showing he has a bit of a hard edge when he needs one

Not a bad day's work for the lad, all told.

The Israeli ambassador in Chicago facilitated training by Israeli security services in US which Minnesota police attended. Annually.

[Betty Boop]

Starmer is a Zionist, he said he supported Zionism without qualification.

[G B Young]

Given the problems Labour has had with anti-semitism, only a very stupid Labour mp would publicise this article. Don’t think Starmer would want very stupid people in the shadow cabinet. 100% the right decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the BBC: She was 'repeatedly given the opportunity to remove her tweet by Labour leadership but steadfastly declined'.

If that's the case Starmer had little choice.

[JeMeSouviens]

Starmer is a Zionist, he said he supported Zionism without qualification.

Zionism in the general sense, ie. when it's not a word being spat out by Corbynistas, just means agreement with the principle that the Jews should have a homeland. If you don't support that, what are you doing to do with the Israeli population?

The Palestinians have undoubtedly had a ******* of a time and the US needs to impose its will on Israel to negotiate and accommodate them (in something like 1967 borders, imo), but you can't just wish away millions of people.

[Betty Boop]

Zionism in the general sense, ie. when it's not a word being spat out by Corbynistas, just means agreement with the principle that the Jews should have a homeland. If you don't support that, what are you doing to do with the Israeli population?

The Palestinians have undoubtedly had a ******* of a time and the US needs to impose its will on Israel to negotiate and accommodate them (in something like 1967 borders, imo), but you can't just wish away millions of people.


A word 'spat' out by Corbynistas ?

[hibsbollah]

Zionism in the general sense, ie. when it's not a word being spat out by Corbynistas, just means agreement with the principle that the Jews should have a homeland. If you don't support that, what are you doing to do with the Israeli population?

The Palestinians have undoubtedly had a ******* of a time and the US needs to impose its will on Israel to negotiate and accommodate them (in something like 1967 borders, imo), but you can't just wish away millions of people.

...a homeland in which another group of people is living. The Zionist principle, if extended to other nations, gives you the right to occupy anyone else's land anytime you like. Its also, by definition, a racist policy.

(by having that opinion, I am technically in breach of the Board of Deputies guidance on what is anti semitism. And I could be expelled from the Labour Party. Despite me not having an anti semitic bone in my body).

But we dont talk about Israel anymore. They get to do what they like.

[Keith_M]

The definition of the word Zionism will vary, according to the views of the person using it.

There's a point of view that it is/was a movement that enabled a persecuted minority to establish a homeland where their safety would be assured. The fact that they were maltreated and persecuted for centuries is an undeniable fact.

Unfortunately, the homeland they chose (or that was given to them by God*, depending on your PoV) already had people in it. Those people are now being persecuted by those 'saved' by Zionism.

Any criticism of the State of Israel can and will be attacked as 'anti-semitic'. The fact that I've even wrote that would be condemned as anti-semitic by many people.

Sadly, anti-semistism is also a very useful slur that you can use against political opponents, or even rivals within your own party. Even the vaguest suggestion that somebody could possibly be considered anti-semitic, perhaps because they publicly sympathise with the Palestinians, will have the whole MSM attacking you from every angle.

That was a tactic exercised incredibly well by the 'New Labour' factions against the 'Corbynite' camp of the Labour party.



* Other people's Gods reserve the right to disagree.

[JeMeSouviens]

...a homeland in which another group of people is living. The Zionist principle, if extended to other nations, gives you the right to occupy anyone else's land anytime you like. Its also, by definition, a racist policy.

(by having that opinion, I am technically in breach of the Board of Deputies guidance on what is anti semitism. And I could be expelled from the Labour Party. Despite me not having an anti semitic bone in my body).

But we dont talk about Israel anymore. They get to do what they like.

If you go back a couple of thousand years, the Jews can argue they were the ones forced out of that territory. And Britain more than anybody established them back there - maybe we should give them Kent?

But, historical arguments aside, they are there now, what do you propose to do, kick them (back) out?

[hibsbollah]

If you go back a couple of thousand years, the Jews can argue they were the ones forced out of that territory. And Britain more than anybody established them back there - maybe we should give them Kent?

But, historical arguments aside, they are there now, what do you propose to do, kick them (back) out?

A two state solution. Both communities equally represented. But thats never going to happen when you have automatic right of settlement for the Jewish diaspora. And Arabs being legally restricted as a racial underclass.

[JeMeSouviens]

A two state solution. Both communities equally represented. But thats never going to happen when you have automatic right of settlement for the Jewish diaspora. And Arabs being legally restricted as a racial underclass.

An agreed 2 state solution has to be the way forward. It needs a US president interested enough and to do all the behind the scenes carrot/stick work on Israel that would be necessary.

I'm not sure how you dictate a sovereign state's rights to settlement though? Once you've agreed their borders, surely it's up to Israel to decide who can live there?

Or are you talking about some kind of 2 state federation?

[G B Young]

But RLB didn't actually make the comment, there were loads of things covered in the article she tweeted.

This is a very cold political decision by Starmer and one he wouldn't be making if an ally of his was under the microscope.

Whilst this will be put in down as "stamping out anti-semitism" it reads to me as removing any alternative voices in Labour.

My initial reaction was that this seemed quite an extreme move by Starmer and was more about seizing an opportunity to further rid the leadership of remnants of the Corbyn era than stamping out anti-Semitism.

However, now that both 'sides' have had their say, it's pretty clear why he felt she had to go. At no point has she actually apologised for her error of judgement, instead sending out a seven-tweet justification of her rationale (while leaving her initial 'absolute diamond' tweet up) and now trying to deflect the issue at stake by widening the scope of the debate into American police tactics. Classic Corbynism, addressing everything but the question. The pro-Corbyn talking head they had on Newsnight last night was the same, trying to steer the converstion in all sorts of directions rather than accept the fact that turning a blind eye to this kind of casual anti-Semitism (ie dropping comments like Maxine Peake made into conversations and presenting them as fact) is why this issue has dogged Labour for so long - and judging by the reaction of the pro-RLB 'Corbynite' faction now looks set to dog them for a good while yet.

[hibsbollah]

An agreed 2 state solution has to be the way forward. It needs a US president interested enough and to do all the behind the scenes carrot/stick work on Israel that would be necessary.

I'm not sure how you dictate a sovereign state's rights to settlement though? Once you've agreed their borders, surely it's up to Israel to decide who can live there?

Or are you talking about some kind of 2 state federation?

The two state model is fairly well established. It’s not about dictating anything, except that all citizens have the same rights, and don’t live under apartheid.

Anyway, it’s really not for this thread. Or shouldn’t be.

[Vault Boy]

RLB won't be missed. Good, decisive leadership from Keir. He's made a strong start.

[Bostonhibby]

Interesting times. This isn't just any old shadow cabinet member thrown under a bus. She's a high-profile, dyed-in-the-wool, old-school leftie, welded to the failed Corbynite wing of the party. Starmer clearly believes he has already garnered enough political capital in his account to sack her. Strong message - I am in charge, no more Jeremy, no more anti-Semites.And maybe an electable labour party to look forward to. Happy days.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-israeli-secret-service-teach-floyd-police-to-kneel-on-neck

Channel 4 fact check shows that the actress did in fact lie in her article about Israel security services training American police to kneel on suspects necks.
If you are going to make up a lie, why pick Israel of all countries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tomsk]

Good piece by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/26/sacking-rebecca-long-bailey-labour-antisemitism-keir-starmer

Grasps the three strands of this story succinctly: Starmer's assertive leadership; the inability of too many on the left to see their own antisemitism; and why antisemitism is getting in the way of actually challenging Israel on its Palestinian policy.

More of this, please.

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-israeli-secret-service-teach-floyd-police-to-kneel-on-neck

Channel 4 fact check shows that the actress did in fact lie in her article about Israel security services training American police to kneel on suspects necks.
If you are going to make up a lie, why pick Israel of all countries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did she lie?

Or did she just get it wrong?

[marinello59]

Did she lie?

Or did she just get it wrong?

Looks to me like she got it wrong.

[hibsbollah]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-israeli-secret-service-teach-floyd-police-to-kneel-on-neck

Channel 4 fact check shows that the actress did in fact lie in her article about Israel security services training American police to kneel on suspects necks.
If you are going to make up a lie, why pick Israel of all countries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'Lie'?.

The point of the piece was that Israeli security services HAVE trained US police in 'security techniques'. That is a fact. Maxine Peake was pissed off about that. Because it is evidence that the US police is unnecessarily militarised. There is no direct evidence that the 'kneeling on the necks' bit was a specific part of the training, that was hyperbole. Is she guilty of hyperbole? Yes. Is she being anti Israeli? Very possibly. That is allowed.

Seriously, there is a laughable lack of honesty going on. You and others want to kick the Left, you don't like 'em, I get that. Its good currency for Nationalists and Right wingers alike. But I think you are not stupid, and you know fine well there is absolutely nothing in this.

[Ozyhibby]

'Lie'?.

The point of the piece was that Israeli security services HAVE trained US police in 'security techniques'. That is a fact. Maxine Peake was pissed off about that. Because it is evidence that the US police is unnecessarily militarised. There is no direct evidence that the 'kneeling on the necks' bit was a specific part of the training, that was hyperbole. Is she guilty of hyperbole? Yes. Is she being anti Israeli? Very possibly. That is allowed.

Seriously, there is a laughable lack of honesty going on. You and others want to kick the Left, you don't like 'em, I get that. Its good currency for Nationalists and Right wingers alike. But I think you are not stupid, and you know fine well there is absolutely nothing in this.

The article says that it was not Israeli security services who delivered the training but Israeli police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Did she lie?

Or did she just get it wrong?

You would have to want to get it wrong to think that police brutality in America against black people was down to Israel secret services.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

The article says that it was not Israeli security services who delivered the training but Israeli police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re picking away at semantics. Israeli forces, well known for keeping an occupied population under control, did the training, so she wasn’t ‘lying’ in any sense, was she?

[Ozyhibby]

You’re picking away at semantics. Israeli forces, well known for keeping an occupied population under control, did the training, so she wasn’t ‘lying’ in any sense, was she?

I would think that the Israeli Police were different from its security service though? And why pick out Israel when American police also receive training from lots of European police forces including Police Scotland?
Interesting that she singles out the only Jewish state in the world?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curried]

Good piece by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/26/sacking-rebecca-long-bailey-labour-antisemitism-keir-starmer

Grasps the three strands of this story succinctly: Starmer's assertive leadership; the inability of too many on the left to see their own antisemitism; and why antisemitism is getting in the way of actually challenging Israel on its Palestinian policy.

More of this, please.

OK. Ask that tosser from the Guardian to put in print what Sir Kier's take on the following is:


Genital mutilation of pre-pubescent males.
Why he thinks it's democratic to deny the people of Scotland a referendum on their future.
Why the Palestinians should be forcibly excluded from their homeland

[Vault Boy]

I would think that the Israeli Police were different from its security service though? And why pick out Israel when American police also receive training from lots of European police forces including Police Scotland?
Interesting that she singles out the only Jewish state in the world?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Especially as the police department that are responsible for the murder of George Floyd were already authorised, specifically, to use their legs to restrain the necks of their suspects. The inclusion of Israeli forces is to make it seem as though it's somehow the fault of Israel, as you've highlighted. It lacks any subtlety and RLB deserved to go. Especially with climate caused by the previous leadership failing to deal with antisemitism.

[hibsbollah]

I would think that the Israeli Police were different from its security service though? And why pick out Israel when American police also receive training from lots of European police forces including Police Scotland?
Interesting that she singles out the only Jewish state in the world?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re actually infuriating:faf: It is not in dispute that Peake was incorrect in the terminology. The ‘why pick out Israel?’ Well, because they were doing the police training? You clearly believe Israel is not allowed to be criticised by anyone without that being condemned as automatically AS. Is there any burden of proof at all? Very dangerous fascistic logic. Are we anti Catholic when we criticise Italians response to CV? It’s equally as ludicrous.

[marinello59]

You’re actually infuriating:faf: It is not in dispute that Peake was incorrect in the terminology. The ‘why pick out Israel?’ Well, because they were doing the police training? You clearly believe Israel is not allowed to be criticised by anyone without that being condemned as automatically AS. Is there any burden of proof at all? Very dangerous fascistic logic. Are we anti Catholic when we criticise Italians response to CV? It’s equally as ludicrous.

Come on, you know fine well actresses should be held to the same standards as politicians when it comes to fact checking their tweets.
I don’t remember the same level of examination from SNP supporters when the civic nationalists of Fife decided a wee bit of anti-semitism was completely acceptable though.

[G B Young]

Slight tangent but anyone watched the Netfix series Mossad? Compelling and unnerving in equal measure.

[Ozyhibby]

You’re actually infuriating:faf: It is not in dispute that Peake was incorrect in the terminology. The ‘why pick out Israel?’ Well, because they were doing the police training? You clearly believe Israel is not allowed to be criticised by anyone without that being condemned as automatically AS. Is there any burden of proof at all? Very dangerous fascistic logic. Are we anti Catholic when we criticise Italians response to CV? It’s equally as ludicrous.

The American police receive training courses from lots of different countries all over the world. The Israeli police were not the only ones. So why pick them out instead of say, Police Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Slight tangent but anyone watched the Netfix series Mossad? Compelling and unnerving in equal measure.

I haven’t watched that but I did enjoy Fauda on Netflix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Come on, you know fine well actresses should be held to the same standards as politicians when it comes to fact checking their tweets.
I don’t remember the same level of examination from SNP supporters when the civic nationalists of Fife decided a wee bit of anti-semitism was completely acceptable though.

I don’t know what’s sarcasm and what isn’t anymore :greengrin

[marinello59]

I don’t know what’s sarcasm and what isn’t anymore :greengrin

I’m bracing myself for incoming fire over that one. :greengrin

[Bristolhibby]

You’re picking away at semantics. Israeli forces, well known for keeping an occupied population under control, did the training, so she wasn’t ‘lying’ in any sense, was she?

This twitter thread tries to frame a bit of context.

It’s a bit of a read.

https://twitter.com/sara_rose_g/status/1276171378044125189?s=21

[Bristolhibby]

The article says that it was not Israeli security services who delivered the training but Israeli police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are police not security services?

J

[Tomsk]

OK. Ask that tosser from the Guardian to put in print what Sir Kier's take on the following is:


Genital mutilation of pre-pubescent males.
Why he thinks it's democratic to deny the people of Scotland a referendum on their future.
Why the Palestinians should be forcibly excluded from their homeland


Fill your boots. Nothing stopping you.

[JeMeSouviens]

This twitter thread tries to frame a bit of context.

It’s a bit of a read.

https://twitter.com/sara_rose_g/status/1276171378044125189?s=21

Very well explained.

[JeMeSouviens]

Come on, you know fine well actresses should be held to the same standards as politicians when it comes to fact checking their tweets.
I don’t remember the same level of examination from SNP supporters when the civic nationalists of Fife decided a wee bit of anti-semitism was completely acceptable though.

The more important issue is the endorsement by and refusal to retract of RLB.

It strikes me that the “this isn’t anti-semitism, it’s just criticism of Israel” argument is indulging in an (admittedly more nuanced) version of the same sophiistry as the “all lives matter” crowd.

[hibsbollah]

The more important issue is the endorsement by and refusal to retract of RLB.

It strikes me that the “this isn’t anti-semitism, it’s just criticism of Israel” argument is indulging in an (admittedly more nuanced) version of the same sophiistry as the “all lives matter” crowd.

Oh sweet Jesus, that’s a new low of ridiculous analogies. It’s just meaningless.

[JeMeSouviens]

Oh sweet Jesus, that’s a new low of ridiculous analogies. It’s just meaningless.

I knew you’d like that. :wink: Context is everything though.

[Kato]

I would think that the Israeli Police were different from its security service though? And why pick out Israel when American police also receive training from lots of European police forces including Police Scotland?
Interesting that she singles out the only Jewish state in the world?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIs calling Israel a "Jewish State " not one of them far-right tropes?


Not picking you up bud, just any kind of semantic wording is a hot potato within that part of the world.

The term "Jewish State" is packed with political dynamite, on all sides.

Such a beautiful part of the world, shame it's so f***** up.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Is calling Israel a "Jewish State " not one of them far-right tropes?


Not picking you up bud, just any kind of semantic wording is a hot potato within that part of the world.

The term "Jewish State" is packed with political dynamite, on all sides.

Such a beautiful part of the world, shame it's so f***** up.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-middle-east-44881554

Does this mean that the the Israel Government is anti - semetic then? 😕

[hibsbollah]

I knew you’d like that. :wink: Context is everything though.

If you’re talking about context, You should try and imagine a scenario where a U.K. politician ever has the cojones to properly criticise Israel for anything anymore. Israel is planning to annexe the West Bank this summer. The BBC tab the topic The Trump Peace Plan, unbelievably. It’s an illegal land grab. ‘A triumph for Zionism’, in Netanyahus own words. Letter opposing it from 1000 European ministers, including Lisa Nandy (yes indeed) has been submitted. Worth keeping an eye on.

On the Johnathan Freedland article, as well as his Guardian stuff, some of which I like, he’s very active in BICOM, the Israeli research and lobbying organisation, and seems to be a regular speaker at Friends of Israel events. Just for context.

[JeMeSouviens]

If you’re talking about context, You should try and imagine a scenario where a U.K. politician ever has the cojones to properly criticise Israel for anything anymore. Israel is planning to annexe the West Bank this summer. The BBC tab the topic The Trump Peace Plan, unbelievably. It’s an illegal land grab. ‘A triumph for Zionism’, in Netanyahus own words. Letter opposing it from 1000 European ministers, including Lisa Nandy (yes indeed) has been submitted. Worth keeping an eye on.

On the Johnathan Freedland article, as well as his Guardian stuff, some of which I like, he’s very active in BICOM, the Israeli research and lobbying organisation, and seems to be a regular speaker at Friends of Israel events. Just for context.

Or put another way, he’s Jewish. He also ends his article pointing out the injustice against Palestinians and the urgency of the west bank situation.

[hibsbollah]

Or put another way, he’s Jewish. He also ends his article pointing out the injustice against Palestinians and the urgency of the west bank situation.

I’ve no idea if he’s Jewish or not. He does have a history of being an apologist for one of the most brutal regimes on the planet, which is the point.

I see The Guardian are highlighting that the billionaire recipient of Robert Jenricks alleged corruption, is Israeli. Right there on it’s headline. Is that an Anti Semitic ‘trope?’ If not, why not?

[Keith_M]

So, the Labour Party.....

[G B Young]

So, the Labour Party.....

Indeed.

This piece makes some valid points about why RLB's foolishness in endorsing that article extends well beyond just the anti-Semitic issue:

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/rebecca-long-bailey-sack

(Jeez, it's a bit of an ordeal trying to post on this forum...some sort of double log-in lock on the Holy Ground plus all sorts of ads popping up)

[hibsbollah]

Indeed.

This piece makes some valid points about why RLB's foolishness in endorsing that article extends well beyond just the anti-Semitic issue:

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/rebecca-long-bailey-sack

(Jeez, it's a bit of an ordeal trying to post on this forum...some sort of double log-in lock on the Holy Ground plus all sorts of ads popping up)

He ****s it up in the first sentence by claiming she uses an anti Semitic trope, when she didn’t. But repetition becomes fact.

[Kato]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-middle-east-44881554

Does this mean that the the Israel Government is anti - semetic then? 😕

"Right-Wing" doesn't mean "Anti-Semitic".

[Tomsk]

I’ve no idea if he’s Jewish or not. He does have a history of being an apologist for one of the most brutal regimes on the planet, which is the point.

I see The Guardian are highlighting that the billionaire recipient of Robert Jenricks alleged corruption, is Israeli. Right there on it’s headline. Is that an Anti Semitic ‘trope?’ If not, why not?

That's a good point. While it is relevant that the billionaire is non-British, it doesn't appear to me at least that there is any particular significance in his being Israeli and why this should be emphasised in the headline. He could just as easily have been Russian, Indian, American or whatever. His nationality could have been picked up in the body of the article and any number of alternative descriptors used in the headline if one was needed.

As for Jonathan Freedland's piece on Starmer's sacking of RLB I thought it was reasonably balanced and avoided giving Israel a free pass, not least in the last paragraph.

If people can absorb that Israel is not responsible for all the world’s evils, but rather for a very specific injustice that desperately needs resolution, then perhaps we can move away from a conversation that casually echoes centuries-old slurs against Jews, and towards one that at last addresses the on-the-ground reality. That reality is getting worse for Palestinians, with the prospect of annexation of the West Bank looming ever closer. We need to hear that, without getting diverted by medieval fantasies about Jews.

Tread softly, though Guardian. It really is dangerous territory.

[Tomsk]

That's a good point. While it is relevant that the billionaire is non-British, it doesn't appear to me at least that there is any particular significance in his being Israeli and why this should be emphasised in the headline. He could just as easily have been Russian, Indian, American or whatever. His nationality could have been picked up in the body of the article and any number of alternative descriptors used in the headline if one was needed.

As for Jonathan Freedland's piece on Starmer's sacking of RLB I thought it was reasonably balanced and avoided giving Israel a free pass, not least in the last paragraph.

If people can absorb that Israel is not responsible for all the world’s evils, but rather for a very specific injustice that desperately needs resolution, then perhaps we can move away from a conversation that casually echoes centuries-old slurs against Jews, and towards one that at last addresses the on-the-ground reality. That reality is getting worse for Palestinians, with the prospect of annexation of the West Bank looming ever closer. We need to hear that, without getting diverted by medieval fantasies about Jews.

Tread softly, though Guardian. It really is dangerous territory.

While I recall, it's also another instance of why using Israeli distracts from the actual issue at hand. We should be talking about a Tory minister caught with his hand in the sweetie jar not the nationality of the jar's owner.

[hibsbollah]

That's a good point. While it is relevant that the billionaire is non-British, it doesn't appear to me at least that there is any particular significance in his being Israeli and why this should be emphasised in the headline. He could just as easily have been Russian, Indian, American or whatever. His nationality could have been picked up in the body of the article and any number of alternative descriptors used in the headline if one was needed.

As for Jonathan Freedland's piece on Starmer's sacking of RLB I thought it was reasonably balanced and avoided giving Israel a free pass, not least in the last paragraph.

If people can absorb that Israel is not responsible for all the world’s evils, but rather for a very specific injustice that desperately needs resolution, then perhaps we can move away from a conversation that casually echoes centuries-old slurs against Jews, and towards one that at last addresses the on-the-ground reality. That reality is getting worse for Palestinians, with the prospect of annexation of the West Bank looming ever closer. We need to hear that, without getting diverted by medieval fantasies about Jews.

Tread softly, though Guardian. It really is dangerous territory.

I do appreciate you actually engaging with the point, instead of chucking a grenade and running away. Freedland is a very clever writer even if there are a few straw men in there.

ps- Note to all-calling him 'clever' is not a AS trope. He's just clever.

[neil7908]

"Right-Wing" doesn't mean "Anti-Semitic".

You didn't say right wing though, you said far right.

[Kato]

You didn't say right wing though, you said far right.

....and in trying to illustrate a point of language used I've fallen into the trap of using language that can be used and misinterpreted :greengrin

Religious states though, how can that be right...I mean, correct?

[Keith_M]

Whenever there's a discussion about Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party, I usually recommended reading THIS (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda/) article.

"Norman G. Finkelstein talks Naz Shah MP, Ken Livingstone, and the Labour ‘antisemitism’ controversy."


In this instance, he's perhaps been a bit more forgiving of Livingstone's comment than I would have been (if I'd had his background), but I think it's quite a well balanced outlook on the overall situation... and this is someone that himself is Jewish and whose mother survived life in the Warsaw Ghetto.

[hibsbollah]

Whenever there's a discussion about Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party, I usually recommended reading THIS (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda/) article.

"Norman G. Finkelstein talks Naz Shah MP, Ken Livingstone, and the Labour ‘antisemitism’ controversy."


In this instance, he's perhaps been a bit more forgiving of Livingstone's comment than I would have been (if I'd had his background), but I think it's quite a well balanced outlook on the overall situation... and this is someone that himself is Jewish and whose mother survived life in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Some of that is really profound:top marks

I liked this;

Once the Nazi holocaust became the cultural referent, then, if you wanted to touch a nerve regarding Palestinian suffering, you had to make the analogy with the Nazis, because that was the only thing that resonated for Jews. If you compared the Palestinians to Native Americans, nobody would give a darn.

But this is exactly one of the many things you now CAN'T do in 20th century Britain. As Ken Livingstone and Neale Hanvey (SNP) found out not long ago.

[neil7908]

....and in trying to illustrate a point of language used I've fallen into the trap of using language that can be used and misinterpreted :greengrin

Religious states though, how can that be right...I mean, correct?

😆Thus showing how complex and difficult these subjects are!

Agree 100% on the your second point and that's basically what I was getting at. Whether it's US politicians trying to link Christianity to government, Iran declaring itself an Islamic Republic or Israel defining itself as a Jewish State, it all seems wrong and undemocratic.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1277160119260905472?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

John McDonnell is expressing his support for RLB saying that she should not have been sacked. He is tying himself to the past and what has not worked and saving Starmer a job.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1277160119260905472?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very well summed up. Ed M comes across so much better now he’s allowed to be himself and not trying to project a “leader” image. Good to see him back.

[Vault Boy]

Very well summed up. Ed M comes across so much better now he’s allowed to be himself and not trying to project a “leader” image. Good to see him back.

Agreed. Ed is a talented and genuine MP but was always a strange choice for leader. Much more comfortable and useful in the shadow cabinet.

[-Jonesy-]

Agreed. Ed is a talented and genuine MP but was always a strange choice for leader. Much more comfortable and useful in the shadow cabinet.

But he eats bacon sandwiches weird

[Just_Jimmy]

Agreed. Ed is a talented and genuine MP but was always a strange choice for leader. Much more comfortable and useful in the shadow cabinet.Country would be in a far better place now had it elected him and labour than the choice it actually made.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Country would be in a far better place now had it elected him and labour than the choice it actually made.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Labour might be in a far better position if they had chosen the other Miliband

[Ozyhibby]

Labour might be in a far better position if they had chosen the other Miliband

Yip. His decision to tack to the left followed by letting anyone willing to pay £3 the ability to vote in leadership election allowed Tories to select Corbyn. And it worked a treat.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-i-voted-for-jeremy-corbyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

Yip. His decision to tack to the left followed by letting anyone willing to pay £3 the ability to vote in leadership election allowed Tories to select Corbyn. And it worked a treat.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-i-voted-for-jeremy-corbyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite impressive foresight from Toby Young there.

[Vault Boy]

Country would be in a far better place now had it elected him and labour than the choice it actually made.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Absolutely in agreement with you there JJ. I say strange choice for leader, not because I don't like him (which I do), but rather because of the personality traits it takes to be a Labour leader. Having to bat against the onslaught of right wing press, it was never going to be Ed's forte.

Really felt for Ed. Would have made a damn lot of difference to the UK were he elected. That was my first election as a voter too, sticks with me.

[Mibbes Aye]

Absolutely in agreement with you there JJ. I say strange choice for leader, not because I don't like him (which I do), but rather because of the personality traits it takes to be a Labour leader. Having to bat against the onslaught of right wing press, it was never going to be Ed's forte.

Really felt for Ed. Would have made a damn lot of difference to the UK were he elected. That was my first election as a voter too, sticks with me.

I voted for Ed when he was elected as leader. I never met him, but I had friends who knew him well and they were convinced about him.

David would have been an effective leader, of that I am sure but it is still important to bear in mind the context. At the time, David would have been pilloried from within and without because of voting for the war in Iraq and for his time as Foreign Sec, when a lot of damaging stuff about rendition, torture and the UK’s complicity was coming out.

Ed was essentially part of the Brown camp but the Blairites trusted him, one of the few people in the mix who could talk to both tribes.

I think the media were ruthless with him. The bacon sandwich nonsense is what folk remember. Yet this is someone who stood up to Rupert Murdoch, stood up to the Daily Mail, stood up to predatory energy companies.

And he lip-synced “Take On Me” on The Last Leg. I like Starmer but I will always wish Ed had got a chance.

[Vault Boy]

I voted for Ed when he was elected as leader. I never met him, but I had friends who knew him well and they were convinced about him.

David would have been an effective leader, of that I am sure but it is still important to bear in mind the context. At the time, David would have been pilloried from within and without because of voting for the war in Iraq and for his time as Foreign Sec, when a lot of damaging stuff about rendition, torture and the UK’s complicity was coming out.

Ed was essentially part of the Brown camp but the Blairites trusted him, one of the few people in the mix who could talk to both tribes.

I think the media were ruthless with him. The bacon sandwich nonsense is what folk remember. Yet this is someone who stood up to Rupert Murdoch, stood up to the Daily Mail, stood up to predatory energy companies.

And he lip-synced “Take On Me” on The Last Leg. I like Starmer but I will always wish Ed had got a chance.

Interesting insight and definitely a valuable contemporary perspective on things. EM certainly serves as a bridge between some of the more factional groups within Labour and that's credit to his character.

Haha! Yeah, in some ways Ed being let loose from the bounds of leadership has helped to remind people why so many within the party really liked him in the first place. I've enjoyed what I've heard of his podcast too. Hopefully he plays a crucial part in the next Labour government. 🤞

[Ozyhibby]

I voted for Ed when he was elected as leader. I never met him, but I had friends who knew him well and they were convinced about him.

David would have been an effective leader, of that I am sure but it is still important to bear in mind the context. At the time, David would have been pilloried from within and without because of voting for the war in Iraq and for his time as Foreign Sec, when a lot of damaging stuff about rendition, torture and the UK’s complicity was coming out.

Ed was essentially part of the Brown camp but the Blairites trusted him, one of the few people in the mix who could talk to both tribes.

I think the media were ruthless with him. The bacon sandwich nonsense is what folk remember. Yet this is someone who stood up to Rupert Murdoch, stood up to the Daily Mail, stood up to predatory energy companies.

And he lip-synced “Take On Me” on The Last Leg. I like Starmer but I will always wish Ed had got a chance.

I always felt that Brown and Miliband misunderstood what all the spin doctors Blair had round him had done. They worked round what Blair’s personality was and presented that. Brown and Miliband tried to present themselves as something they were not. Brown trying to convince people he liked the arctic monkeys and Miliband constantly trying to (and failing) appear Prime ministerial were hard to watch. Both should have just tried to be themselves. Miliband has shown he can be very likeable when he relaxes and might have won over more voters that way.
There was no helping Brown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I always felt that Brown and Miliband misunderstood what all the spin doctors Blair had round him had done. They worked round what Blair’s personality was and presented that. Brown and Miliband tried to present themselves as something they were not. Brown trying to convince people he liked the arctic monkeys and Miliband constantly trying to (and failing) appear Prime ministerial were hard to watch. Both should have just tried to be themselves. Miliband has shown he can be very likeable when he relaxes and might have won over more voters that way.
There was no helping Brown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's fair comment. GB has a lighter side but by the same token is very driven and serious. THe script of The Thick Of It is a very thinly-veiled satire of the Blair-Brown years in the first couple of series.

[Just_Jimmy]

Labour might be in a far better position if they had chosen the other MilibandAlso very true

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Colr]

I always felt that Brown and Miliband misunderstood what all the spin doctors Blair had round him had done. They worked round what Blair’s personality was and presented that. Brown and Miliband tried to present themselves as something they were not. Brown trying to convince people he liked the arctic monkeys and Miliband constantly trying to (and failing) appear Prime ministerial were hard to watch. Both should have just tried to be themselves. Miliband has shown he can be very likeable when he relaxes and might have won over more voters that way.
There was no helping Brown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Along with the Artic Monkeys nonsense, Brown had clearly been told to smile more maybe to be more like Tony but it was so false he ended up like Wednesday Adams trying to smile.

He was and is a bit serious and dour but that’s OK especially as people had become a bit weary and distrusting of the grinning Blair by then.

[Keith_M]

Labour might be in a far better position if they had chosen the other Miliband


:agree:


I'm not actually a Labour voter, so don't have very strong views on this, but I was quite amazed when they elected the wrong brother.

[neil7908]

Keir apparently has a zero tolerance policy to anti-semitism but is waiting on a report before he comments on other racist remarks from party members.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/06/keir-starmer-to-sign-up-for-unconscious-bias-training-amid-criticism

[Mibbes Aye]

Keir apparently has a zero tolerance policy to anti-semitism but is waiting on a report before he comments on other racist remarks from party members.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/06/keir-starmer-to-sign-up-for-unconscious-bias-training-amid-criticism

I think it is fair to say that there is a bit of politicking going on in my party. Corbynistas are relishing the chance to try and portray Starmer as soft on racism, due to their bitterness about Jeremy being portrayed as anti-Semitic. And having to step down, instead of being elevated to be PM and bring a utopia where we reduce everything to one TV channel. Said channel featuring Corbyn in that silly cap, playing folk songs on his guitar in tribute to Salvador Allende, and sipping a Chilean red. While Seamas Milne is in the back ground, head swivelling by 360 degrees.

God bless the internecine warfare that permeates the Labour movement! But good grief, it is welcome to have a party leader with credibility again.

[HibernianJK]

https://twitter.com/indypolitics/status/1280272308846944257?s=21

Is this really a good thing.... loved Clarkson on Top Gear but not sure I’d be delighted about aligning with his political ideology.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/indypolitics/status/1280272308846944257?s=21

Is this really a good thing.... loved Clarkson on Top Gear but not sure I’d be delighted about aligning with his political ideology.

There is nothing in that which really shows Starmer welcoming his support. By the same token, he would be churlish to deliberately be critical about the statement.

The more interesting story for me is Boris criticising care homes. In the UK and certainly in England, most care homes are private sector and there are a few huge companies that own most of the market, with big investment from hedge funds and the like - they are generally seen as profitable investments. People investing in these funds are more likely to be Conservative donors than Labour. I am not sure they will welcome criticism of the independent care sector.

[neil7908]

I think it is fair to say that there is a bit of politicking going on in my party. Corbynistas are relishing the chance to try and portray Starmer as soft on racism, due to their bitterness about Jeremy being portrayed as anti-Semitic. And having to step down, instead of being elevated to be PM and bring a utopia where we reduce everything to one TV channel. Said channel featuring Corbyn in that silly cap, playing folk songs on his guitar in tribute to Salvador Allende, and sipping a Chilean red. While Seamas Milne is in the back ground, head swivelling by 360 degrees.

God bless the internecine warfare that permeates the Labour movement! But good grief, it is welcome to have a party leader with credibility again.

Or maybe some in the party are worried. Plenty of black Labour voters seem concerned:

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/leaked-labour-report-sees-black-voters-quit-party-over-final-straw_uk_5ea70e55c5b6a30004e62cc0

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1283376960106881026?s=21

Cooper showing why she needs to be one of the more prominent members of Starmers party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tomsk]

https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1283376960106881026?s=21

Cooper showing why she needs to be one of the more prominent members of Starmers party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You have to feel for the boy signing for her in the video below when Patel talks about a Herculooan effort. I always wondered what was sign language for WTF!

[G B Young]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

I'm guessing the fact Labour aren't contesting the case means they already know the contents of EHRC inquiry (which must be due to be published soon) are damning.

[G B Young]

Labour pays 'substantial damages' and issues unreserved apology (including an apology to the Panorama journalist) to the whistleblowers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

Starmer certainly can't be accused of not following up on his pledge to tackle anti-Semitism in the party, though I note the odious Len McCluskey continues to bleat from the sidelines.

[Hiber-nation]

Labour pays 'substantial damages' and issues unreserved apology (including an apology to the Panorama journalist) to the whistleblowers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53489611

Starmer certainly can't be accused of not following up on his pledge to tackle anti-Semitism in the party, though I note the odious Len McCluskey continues to bleat from the sidelines.

McCluskey is what my Granddad would have called "a blawbag" which is slightly different from a bawbag but either would do for that clown.

[Kato]

It's great the Labour Party have been called to account and are now in a situation where reparations and mending their systems are underway.

Now should be the time for the Torys to tackle their Islamophobia and inherent Xenophobia. Don't hold your breath.

[G B Young]

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-could-face-legal-action-after-criticising-labour-antisemitism-apology-12034070

Beggars belief that Corbyn would see fit to stick his oar in and potentially heap more legal action on Labour, just as the party had started to look like they might begin to move on from this issue.

Starmer must despair (although as this BBC analysis points out he did continue to support the Corbyn leadership while Labour colleagues quit over the anti-Semitism saga):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53484994

[G B Young]

Rumours that Corbyn will lose the whip:

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2020/07/22/there-are-rumours-starmer-is-about-to-remove-the-whip-from-corbyn/

Hard to believe that would really happen as it would likely just plunge Labour into a whole new realm of in-fighting, but Starmer must be tempted - and I guess few would have predicted he would actually sack Long-Bailey.

[Mibbes Aye]

Rumours that Corbyn will lose the whip:

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2020/07/22/there-are-rumours-starmer-is-about-to-remove-the-whip-from-corbyn/

Hard to believe that would really happen as it would likely just plunge Labour into a whole new realm of in-fighting, but Starmer must be tempted - and I guess few would have predicted he would actually sack Long-Bailey.

I think a lot depends on the EHRC report and I wouldn’t be surprised. It would be another clear move by Starmer to create distance from Corbyn.

But in all honesty, he and McDonnell voted against the last Labour government nearly one thousand times between them, while enjoying all the trappings and support of the Labour Party machine.

They were tolerated because Labour had such massive majorities that it wasn’t worth bothering about. If they were so fundamentally against Labour Party policy then maybe, just maybe, they could have resigned the whip and stood as independents. But that would require honour and would also require giving up all the benefits that came from being part of a big party machine.

Labour is a movement, not a party, and there is room for dissenting opinions, but voting against your own party when in government, time and time and time again isn’t dissent, it is hypocrisy, because they were biting the hand they were happy to feed from.

[G B Young]

I think a lot depends on the EHRC report and I wouldn’t be surprised. It would be another clear move by Starmer to create distance from Corbyn.

But in all honesty, he and McDonnell voted against the last Labour government nearly one thousand times between them, while enjoying all the trappings and support of the Labour Party machine.

They were tolerated because Labour had such massive majorities that it wasn’t worth bothering about. If they were so fundamentally against Labour Party policy then maybe, just maybe, they could have resigned the whip and stood as independents. But that would require honour and would also require giving up all the benefits that came from being part of a big party machine.

Labour is a movement, not a party, and there is room for dissenting opinions, but voting against your own party when in government, time and time and time again isn’t dissent, it is hypocrisy, because they were biting the hand they were happy to feed from.

Good point. The pair of them and their remaining cohorts would hardly be missed by a party trying desperately to make itself electable again.

[lucky]

McCluskey is what my Granddad would have called "a blawbag" which is slightly different from a bawbag but either would do for that clown.

Len has a “personal” friend involved in this so his view is a little bit coloured on this subject.

[lucky]

I’ve been a Labour Party member for many years, I’ve never encountered anti Semitic behaviour by anyone in the party. There are lots of people who dislike the Israeli Government, it’s policies and illegal occupation of Palestine. This does not make these Labour Party members anti jewish. There is also a strong pro Israel element in the Labour Party who take any attack on Israel and its policies to anti jewish. As democrats we would should be allowed to criticise a government or its policies without religion being brought into the argument.

I’ve visited Palestine and how the world sits back and allows the Israeli Government steal land, try children in military courts and then lock up children for throwing stones, bans Palestinians from driving in parts of their country, turn the water supply of from homes. The list goes on and on. When an occupying army acts in this manner it’s not hard for people to see the similarities of previous occupying armies from the second world war.

[hibsbollah]

I’ve been a Labour Party member for many years, I’ve never encountered anti Semitic behaviour by anyone in the party. There are lots of people who dislike the Israeli Government, it’s policies and illegal occupation of Palestine. This does not make these Labour Party members anti jewish. There is also a strong pro Israel element in the Labour Party who take any attack on Israel and its policies to anti jewish. As democrats we would should be allowed to criticise a government or its policies without religion being brought into the argument.

I’ve visited Palestine and how the world sits back and allows the Israeli Government steal land, try children in military courts and then lock up children for throwing stones, bans Palestinians from driving in parts of their country, turn the water supply of from homes. The list goes on and on. When an occupying army acts in this manner it’s not hard for people to see the similarities of previous occupying armies from the second world war.

Well said. But there’s very little appetite for a genuine examination of anti semitism, especially when that final sentence you’ve written there could very easily put you in breach of the IHRA guidance and at risk of the party you are clearly dedicated to.

[G B Young]

I’ve been a Labour Party member for many years, I’ve never encountered anti Semitic behaviour by anyone in the party. There are lots of people who dislike the Israeli Government, it’s policies and illegal occupation of Palestine. This does not make these Labour Party members anti jewish. There is also a strong pro Israel element in the Labour Party who take any attack on Israel and its policies to anti jewish. As democrats we would should be allowed to criticise a government or its policies without religion being brought into the argument.

I’ve visited Palestine and how the world sits back and allows the Israeli Government steal land, try children in military courts and then lock up children for throwing stones, bans Palestinians from driving in parts of their country, turn the water supply of from homes. The list goes on and on. When an occupying army acts in this manner it’s not hard for people to see the similarities of previous occupying armies from the second world war.

I hadn't been aware Labour has now seen a draft version of the EHRC report into allegations of anti-Semitism within the party and are committed to acting on its recommendations, which may explain why they quickly issued hefty compensation and such an unreserved apology to the Panorama whistleblowers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53397173

I'm guessing the report exposes more than simply an anti-Israel stance among certain elements of the party but it sounds like we'll need to wait until September for its official publication.

[lucky]

Well said. But there’s very little appetite for a genuine examination of anti semitism, especially when that final sentence you’ve written there could very easily put you in breach of the IHRA guidance and at risk of the party you are clearly dedicated to.

It may well but I’ve been mentally scared after visiting Palestine. Being supportive of the Palestinian people does not make me anti Jewish. If the Israeli government stop stealing land and even agreed to Israel having a border with Palestine based on the settlement following the 1967 war then some progress could be made. When an army regularly arrest children in the middle of the night from their beds and try them in military courts it’s impossible not to have strong views on them. I’ve visited refugee camps that hold thousands of people, these camps have been their for years now and have hundreds of homes and you’d think they were just poor areas except for the gun turrets that cover very angle of them. So if an occupying army acts like a facist dictators army it’s only fair to describe in that manner.

[hibsbollah]

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/uk/uk-jews-call-for-expelling-labor-mp-barry-sheerman-for-silver-shekels-tweets/2020/08/02/

Another antisemitism in the Labour Party story. A few key differences with this one;
1. Sheerman is on the right of the party and has been an enthusiastic critic of Corbyn.
2.Sheerman is a member of Friends of Israel.
3. What Sheerman tweeted was his own words, not a ‘like’ or retweet of someone else’s intention. The words were unambiguously anti Semitic and seem far more damning than the recent Long Bailey thing. But unlike recent ‘scandals’ contained no criticism of the Israeli regime.
4. The tweet was from Sunday. But the story is hard to find on the bbc, hidden away in the regional news. Nothing in the Guardian, usually all over the antisemitism discussion. Labour leadership not been asked about it, so no response required from Starmer.

:dunno:

[neil7908]

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/uk/uk-jews-call-for-expelling-labor-mp-barry-sheerman-for-silver-shekels-tweets/2020/08/02/

Another antisemitism in the Labour Party story. A few key differences with this one;
1. Sheerman is on the right of the party and has been an enthusiastic critic of Corbyn.
2.Sheerman is a member of Friends of Israel.
3. What Sheerman tweeted was his own words, not a ‘like’ or retweet of someone else’s intention. The words were unambiguously anti Semitic and seem far more damning than the recent Long Bailey thing. But unlike recent ‘scandals’ contained no criticism of the Israeli regime.
4. The tweet was from Sunday. But the story is hard to find on the bbc, hidden away in the regional news. Nothing in the Guardian, usually all over the antisemitism discussion. Labour leadership not been asked about it, so no response required from Starmer.

:dunno:

I look forward to Starmer making a swift decision to remove the whip. He's set the bar so over to you Keir...

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/uk/uk-jews-call-for-expelling-labor-mp-barry-sheerman-for-silver-shekels-tweets/2020/08/02/

Another antisemitism in the Labour Party story. A few key differences with this one;
1. Sheerman is on the right of the party and has been an enthusiastic critic of Corbyn.
2.Sheerman is a member of Friends of Israel.
3. What Sheerman tweeted was his own words, not a ‘like’ or retweet of someone else’s intention. The words were unambiguously anti Semitic and seem far more damning than the recent Long Bailey thing. But unlike recent ‘scandals’ contained no criticism of the Israeli regime.
4. The tweet was from Sunday. But the story is hard to find on the bbc, hidden away in the regional news. Nothing in the Guardian, usually all over the antisemitism discussion. Labour leadership not been asked about it, so no response required from Starmer.

:dunno:

One slight difference from RLB is that he apologised. A suspension of the whip is justified though. RLB still has the whip so it would be a harsher punishment than she received but Labour has to start getting very tough on this. It’s mental that people in these jobs can be so stupid as to keep making these errors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

One slight difference from RLB is that he apologised. A suspension of the whip is justified though. RLB still has the whip so it would be a harsher punishment than she received but Labour has to start getting very tough on this. It’s mental that people in these jobs can be so stupid as to keep making these errors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I apologize for my earlier tweet. I did not intend the meaning which has upset many

What did he intend then?

This isn't even subtly anti-semitic. The RLB thing is a much bigger story because of the leadership contest and her high profile but this seems a far worse offence. Starmer has to bin the guy forthwith.

[neil7908]

Unlikely to face any action according to this:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/barry-sheerman-unlikely-face-action-18709003

Shocking if true and completely destroys any suggestion of "zero tolerance".

I'm increasingly unsure on Starmer.

[lapsedhibee]

What did he intend then?

This isn't even subtly anti-semitic. The RLB thing is a much bigger story because of the leadership contest and her high profile but this seems a far worse offence. Starmer has to bin the guy forthwith.

Would quite like to hear how his explanation about 'being clever by referring to 2,000-year old currency' would get on in Would I Lie To You?

[hibsbollah]

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/uk/uk-jews-call-for-expelling-labor-mp-barry-sheerman-for-silver-shekels-tweets/2020/08/02/

Another antisemitism in the Labour Party story. A few key differences with this one;
1. Sheerman is on the right of the party and has been an enthusiastic critic of Corbyn.
2.Sheerman is a member of Friends of Israel.
3. What Sheerman tweeted was his own words, not a ‘like’ or retweet of someone else’s intention. The words were unambiguously anti Semitic and seem far more damning than the recent Long Bailey thing. But unlike recent ‘scandals’ contained no criticism of the Israeli regime.
4. The tweet was from Sunday. But the story is hard to find on the bbc, hidden away in the regional news. Nothing in the Guardian, usually all over the antisemitism discussion. Labour leadership not been asked about it, so no response required from Starmer.

:dunno:

So 9 days has passed since Sheermans tweet.
His constituency party has reported him.
The campaign against Antisemitism has reported him.
Still no interest from the press.
Still no questions asked of Starmer.
Almost most odd of all, still no attempt to make political capital out of it from Johnson.

A weird and depressing story, because no ones interested.

[hibsbollah]

From ‘Yorkshire Live’ yesterday;

Asked directly by the Local Democracy Reporting Service if there was one rule for Rebecca Long-Bailey and another for Mr Sheerman, Sir Keir replied: “I made my position on Rebecca Long-Bailey very clear at the time.
“Barry was wrong to tweet in the way that he did. He deeply regrets it. The word is ‘mortified’.
“He’s taking a break from social media and that’s the right thing.”

[neil7908]

From ‘Yorkshire Live’ yesterday;

Asked directly by the Local Democracy Reporting Service if there was one rule for Rebecca Long-Bailey and another for Mr Sheerman, Sir Keir replied: “I made my position on Rebecca Long-Bailey very clear at the time.
“Barry was wrong to tweet in the way that he did. He deeply regrets it. The word is ‘mortified’.
“He’s taking a break from social media and that’s the right thing.”

Starmer has gone down massively in my estimation. What happened to zero tolerance? Also very interesting that the media and any many others who have been attacking Corbyn seem not bothered by covering the Sheerman story.

Could it be that they didn't actually care about antisemitism?

[ronaldo7]

From ‘Yorkshire Live’ yesterday;

Asked directly by the Local Democracy Reporting Service if there was one rule for Rebecca Long-Bailey and another for Mr Sheerman, Sir Keir replied: “I made my position on Rebecca Long-Bailey very clear at the time.
“Barry was wrong to tweet in the way that he did. He deeply regrets it. The word is ‘mortified’.
“He’s taking a break from social media and that’s the right thing.”

They're gradually sliding back to the right, and with Murray pulling them along in Scotland. Richard's coat is on a shoogly peg.

Starmer wants to move the Sheerman story on before he has to make a call that he really doesn't want to make.

[hibsbollah]

They're gradually sliding back to the right, and with Murray pulling them along in Scotland. Richard's coat is on a shoogly peg.

Starmer wants to move the Sheerman story on before he has to make a call that he really doesn't want to make.

There’s no ‘Sheerman story’ to move on, that’s the thing, apart from one question from the Local Democracy Reporting Service reporter it’s not a story. The EEN has LDRS reporters, maybe they’d ask Ian Murray a question on the subject :dunno:

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-campaign-against-another-scottish-22547514.amp?__twitter_impression=true

It’s a peculiar Labour Party trait that they can see where they are going wrong but will plod on regardless into certain electoral rejection before even thinking of doing anything about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-campaign-against-another-scottish-22547514.amp?__twitter_impression=true

It’s a peculiar Labour Party trait that they can see where they are going wrong but will plod on regardless into certain electoral rejection before even thinking of doing anything about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dumb, dumb, dumb. They will never out-staunch the Tories.

[Pretty Boy]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. They will never out-staunch the Tories.

It's a total blind spot for Labour. I remember sitting open mouthed when Len McCluskey was interviewed after the debacle that was the last election. His explanation for the failure in Scotland was that 'we weren't pro union enough'.

There seems to be no ability to realise that as a party they can accept there has been a significant change in circumstances since the last referendum, support another referendum but still campaign for a no vote if one happens. There's no need to jump into bed with the Tories this time and give the kind of imagery the SNP couldn't have imagined they would get in their wildest dreams. Campaign on a 'we'll be sorry to see you go' basis rather than in an aggressively pro union, 'we know what's best for you and you'll be wearing rags and starving within a year' way.

[Tomsk]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. They will never out-staunch the Tories.

Why is it dumb?

I am a left of centre, progressive and unionist. Who do I vote for in May if Labour declares for independence?

[marinello59]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. They will never out-staunch the Tories.

Leonard must be totally tone deaf if he is going to go with a no referendum policy. Labour don't even have to switch to supporting Independence, they just have to say they have no fear of a referendum if that is clearly what the people of Scotland want. It's political suicide at a time when we really need the Labour movement as a whole to be making itself as attractive as possible to voters.

[Mon Dieu4]

Why is it dumb?

I am a left of centre, progressive and unionist. Who do I vote for in May if Labour declares for independence?

The party who has the majority of the policies you like and can get behind, There has never once been a party that I agree with 100% so you may need to compromise and vote for who is closest aligned to your views

[hibsbollah]

Leonard must be totally tone deaf if he is going to go with a no referendum policy. Labour don't even have to switch to supporting Independence, they just have to say they have no fear of a referendum if that is clearly what the people of Scotland want. It's political suicide at a time when we really need the Labour movement as a whole to be making itself as attractive as possible to voters.

:agree: Disappointed again. It’s like the Party is in a permanent state of punching itself in the face.

[Tomsk]

The party who has the majority of the policies you like and can get behind, There has never once been a party that I agree with 100% so you may need to compromise and vote for who is closest aligned to your views

It is not a tick-box exercise where the party with most ticks get your vote. We are talking about fundamentals here - in short, independence. I could weigh up the parties' policies and probably find the best overall fit for me is SNP. But I still wouldn't vote for them because of their position on independence.

If I happen to be an ex-Labour voter who has crossed over to the SNP because I now believe independence to be the panacea for all our ills, then Labour declaring for independence or even softening its line on a referendum isn't going to make me come back.

[DaveF]

If I happen to be an ex-Labour voter who has crossed over to the SNP because I now believe independence to be the panacea for all our ills, then Labour declaring for independence or even softening its line on a referendum isn't going to make me come back.

Does anyone really believe your throw away line about Independence or is that just the unionist in you who can't help having a cheap dig?

[Ozyhibby]

It is not a tick-box exercise where the party with most ticks get your vote. We are talking about fundamentals here - in short, independence. I could weigh up the parties' policies and probably find the best overall fit for me is SNP. But I still wouldn't vote for them because of their position on independence.

If I happen to be an ex-Labour voter who has crossed over to the SNP because I now believe independence to be the panacea for all our ills, then Labour declaring for independence or even softening its line on a referendum isn't going to make me come back.

It’s up to Labour I suppose. The union now appears to be a minority opinion these days and Labour are fighting for that minority of votes with two other parties. And even among that minority, most are right wing. It means without a change in position they are going to become ever more marginalised. They will end up with Lib Dem levels of support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

It is not a tick-box exercise where the party with most ticks get your vote. We are talking about fundamentals here - in short, independence. I could weigh up the parties' policies and probably find the best overall fit for me is SNP. But I still wouldn't vote for them because of their position on independence.

If I happen to be an ex-Labour voter who has crossed over to the SNP because I now believe independence to be the panacea for all our ills, then Labour declaring for independence or even softening its line on a referendum isn't going to make me come back.

You're spot on. It's too big a leap for those who have never had and never will have a problem being part of the UK. There's a lot about Sturgeon I respect but voting for a party whose raison d'etre is leaving the UK is a non-starter.

I guess it works both ways in that those for whom independence has become such a obsession over the last decade will never vote for anyone else no matter how chequered the SNP's record in government is.

[JeMeSouviens]

Why is it dumb?

I am a left of centre, progressive and unionist. Who do I vote for in May if Labour declares for independence?

There just aren’t enough no voters to go round. As m59 says, they don’t have to declare *for* indy but by sticking to rigid opposition to a ref2 they have no chance. The Tories have already corralled the 20-25% that are hardline pro-union.

[One Day Soon]

Does anyone really believe your throw away line about Independence or is that just the unionist in you who can't help having a cheap dig?


I'm not following what you mean here, where's the throw away line? As for cheap digs, we're not exactly short of those on the other side of this debate.

[One Day Soon]

There just aren’t enough no voters to go round. As m59 says, they don’t have to declare *for* indy but by sticking to rigid opposition to a ref2 they have no chance. The Tories have already corralled the 20-25% that are hardline pro-union.

Neither the SNP nor any of the pro-union parties are trying to deepen their hold of the voters who are largely never going to leave their Yes or No positions. They're both after the softer swing voters in the middle - in this instance those who were No when the 55-45 was the other way round but are Yes just now. Who wins those voters depends upon the quality of offer between independence and a non-independence platform that reflects voters top priorities (independence is about 6th or 7th I think?).

There's a perfectly respectable political position against a second referendum - certainly in the near future - and Labour knows that the lobby from pro-Nat figures on the position you are taking (why not accept a second referendum, you don't need to support independence) would subsequently be used to beat them up if they didn't support a second referendum after an election. That in turn would be milked as another grievance. As a left of centre voter I want a party that opposes independence, opposes a second referendum for the generation Salmond inidicated, has a half decent leader and - most importantly - puts a social justice programme first. I guess I'll settle for three out of four but a full sweep would make a change.

[DaveF]

I'm not following what you mean here, where's the throw away line? As for cheap digs, we're not exactly short of those on the other side of this debate.

A panacea for all ills. Who really thinks that's the case?

That's not my view of independence or anyone else I know who supports it.

[One Day Soon]

A panacea for all ills. Who really thinks that's the case?

That's not my view of independence or anyone else I know who supports it.


Oh, I see. Actually there are plenty of folk who seem to think that - social media is awash with them. Just as there are plenty who hold the same view about Brexit, though they are about to find out a lot sooner that reality bites as they say.

[DaveF]

Oh, I see. Actually there are plenty of folk who seem to think that - social media is awash with them. Just as there are plenty who hold the same view about Brexit, though they are about to find out a lot sooner that reality bites as they say.

I hardly think a few Uber nats on twitter are representative. But I guess you know that.

[Tomsk]

There just aren’t enough no voters to go round. As m59 says, they don’t have to declare *for* indy but by sticking to rigid opposition to a ref2 they have no chance. The Tories have already corralled the 20-25% that are hardline pro-union.


It is just too easy to attack and will do Labour no good. Both the SNP and the Tories would have a field day. The SNP would attack quite rightly on the grounds of opportunism, false flag politicking, lack of scruple and a desperate throw of the dice. The Tories would do the same while declaring only with the Tories can you guarantee your vote will be against independence. It would be asking Labour politicians and members to now argue for a policy position they personally had opposed for years and leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy and even deceit.

Labour needs to differentiate itself from SNP not get closer. IMHO the party should state its position on independence unequivocally - we are opposed to independence, we believe it is not in the best interests of the people of Scotland. Furthermore, we believe supporting a second referendum in the current environment if successful just leads inevitably to independence, and we are therefore offering Scots who want to vote for a socially responsive party but are opposed to independence a genuine alternative. If Scots want to vote for an independence party they can cast their votes for the SNP. This is a logical, cohesive and consistent position that Labour members can sustain.

[One Day Soon]

I hardly think a few Uber nats on twitter are representative. But I guess you know that.

I don't know that because I wouldn't agree that it's 'a few Uber nats' - I think there are plenty of people who hold that view and many of them aren't Uber nats either, they're punters who think a golden dawn is coming.

I actually wonder whether the effects of Brexit may make for a deeper appraisal of Scexit, good or bad. I don't think Sturgeon or whoever it is can win a second referendum unless they sell it as warts and all. Salmond's Brigadoon version was ultimately probably self-defeating for being saccharine sweet about all the upside and none of the downside.

[DaveF]

I don't know that because I wouldn't agree that it's 'a few Uber nats' - I think there are plenty of people who hold that view and many of them aren't Uber nats either, they're punters who think a golden dawn is coming.

I actually wonder whether the effects of Brexit may make for a deeper appraisal of Scexit, good or bad. I don't think Sturgeon or whoever it is can win a second referendum unless they sell it as warts and all. Salmond's Brigadoon version was ultimately probably self-defeating for being saccharine sweet about all the upside and none of the downside.

Fair enough. I won't argue with your assertion about online happy clappers as this is the only social media I use to any great extent.

Agree with the other part. It needs to be laid bare - but you would hope plenty valuable lessons have been learned from Indy1 in that regard.

That's enough agreement from me for one day. Off for a run ☺️

[weecounty hibby]

It is just too easy to attack and will do Labour no good. Both the SNP and the Tories would have a field day. The SNP would attack quite rightly on the grounds of opportunism, false flag politicking, lack of scruple and a desperate throw of the dice. The Tories would do the same while declaring only with the Tories can you guarantee your vote will be against independence. It would be asking Labour politicians and members to now argue for a policy position they personally had opposed for years and leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy and even deceit.

Labour needs to differentiate itself from SNP not get closer. IMHO the party should state its position on independence unequivocally - we are opposed to independence, we believe it is not in the best interests of the people of Scotland. Furthermore, we believe supporting a second referendum in the current environment if successful just leads inevitably to independence, and we are therefore offering Scots who want to vote for a socially responsive party but are opposed to independence a genuine alternative. If Scots want to vote for an independence party they can cast their votes for the SNP. This is a logical, cohesive and consistent position that Labour members can sustain.
Yeah, they have tried all that and are losing voters on a daily basis in Scotland. My only concern about that is that when, not if, but when we are independent where does that leave labour. I am an SNP member as I desperately want to live in an independent Scotland. But when that happens I would love to have the option of a decent strong Labour party to perhaps vote for. Right now they seem to be incapable of taking incoming messages and listen to what is going on with the general public. Not just in Scotland either, they are still behind the worst government in history in some of the polls in England.

[JeMeSouviens]

It is just too easy to attack and will do Labour no good. Both the SNP and the Tories would have a field day. The SNP would attack quite rightly on the grounds of opportunism, false flag politicking, lack of scruple and a desperate throw of the dice. The Tories would do the same while declaring only with the Tories can you guarantee your vote will be against independence. It would be asking Labour politicians and members to now argue for a policy position they personally had opposed for years and leave them open to accusations of hypocrisy and even deceit.

Labour needs to differentiate itself from SNP not get closer. IMHO the party should state its position on independence unequivocally - we are opposed to independence, we believe it is not in the best interests of the people of Scotland. Furthermore, we believe supporting a second referendum in the current environment if successful just leads inevitably to independence, and we are therefore offering Scots who want to vote for a socially responsive party but are opposed to independence a genuine alternative. If Scots want to vote for an independence party they can cast their votes for the SNP. This is a logical, cohesive and consistent position that Labour members can sustain.

If you’re happy with 15% of the vote in a distant 3rd, I guess that’s fine.

[CloudSquall]

A number of polls are showing that around 30 to 35% of Labour voters support independence, when you are already in free fall at 14% in the polls to tell that section of your base that they can forget about any notion of a second referendum is just moronic.

[Just Alf]

A number of polls are showing that around 30 to 35% of Labour voters support independence, when you are already in free fall at 14% in the polls to tell that section of your base that they can forget about any notion of a second referendum is just moronic.Agree, use the argument that you are a defender of democracy, so support the idea of a 2nd referendum, also make it plain that if one were to happen you'd be campaigning for the union.

You hopefully get to keep your existing Labour voters and might pull some Labour leaning SNP voters that are simply using the SNP to register their Indy preference.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Kinder politics...

Corbyn's Office Ordered 2017 Election Campaign Funding Cuts For 'Moderate' Labour MPs, Ex-Campaigns Chief Reveals
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/patrick-heneghan-hitlist-mps-2017-election-forde_uk_5f46c61fc5b697186e304d21

[lapsedhibee]

Labour catch up with Conservatives on 40% each, according to Opinium.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/29/boris-johnson-faces-tory-wrath-as-party-slumps-in-shock-poll

[hibsbollah]

Labour catch up with Conservatives on 40% each, according to Opinium.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/29/boris-johnson-faces-tory-wrath-as-party-slumps-in-shock-poll

It’s not as dramatic news as the guardian makes out. Starmer has already had a small lead since the election, which disappeared rapidly and has now tightened again. This is a Govt of historic ineptitude, and it’s fairly obvious that a more hostile liberal press would be asking why Labour has not taken MORE advantage of this historic open goal and is not righteously beasting Johnson by 20 points or whatever. The UK polls are still really almost exclusively about Brexit.

[Glory Lurker]

An opinion poll over four years out from the next scheduled general election is nothing. By then, we'll have had over 15 years of Tory/Tory-enabler governments plus the denouement (!) of our Brexit journey. And, hey, the Tories might get in again anyway. The machine's bust. Let's get a new one.

[Hibrandenburg]

An opinion poll over four years out from the next scheduled general election is nothing. By then, we'll have had over 15 years of Tory/Tory-enabler governments plus the denouement (!) of our Brexit journey. And, hey, the Tories might get in again anyway. The machine's bust. Let's get a new one.

Even if they don't get back in, any Labour government is just a stopgap until the next bunch of Etonian hooray Henries get to stuff it to the oinks!

[Mibbes Aye]

It’s not as dramatic news as the guardian makes out. Starmer has already had a small lead since the election, which disappeared rapidly and has now tightened again. This is a Govt of historic ineptitude, and it’s fairly obvious that a more hostile liberal press would be asking why Labour has not taken MORE advantage of this historic open goal and is not righteously beasting Johnson by 20 points or whatever. The UK polls are still really almost exclusively about Brexit.

Maybe because until recently, we were handicapped by carrying Corbyn, McDonnell, Bailey-Long, Milne, Miurphy, their acolytes and all the iother entryists who turned an electable party into a ****storm that couldn't hold the Tories to account because it was caught up in navel-gazing and some ridiculous posturing on anti-semitism.

Labour has a tendency to go into self-destruct every generation or so, but it is better-served when the pretend members take back their three quid and go back to being really annoyed about something but not really clear about why.

[Kato]

Labour has a tendency to go into self-destruct every geberqtion or so,.

It's annoying that it happens this often.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

It's annoying that it happens this often.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

I find it fascinating. The Tories ha ve always had internal divisions but generally seem to seal them off to ensure they can retain power.

[Ozyhibby]

Apart from Tony Blair, Labour have pretty much been unelectable my whole life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Apart from Tony Blair, Labour have pretty much been unelectable my whole life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You would have been too young to vote but Harold Wilson got elected and his government passed a raft of landmark legislation that tackled all sorts of inequalities.

[Ozyhibby]

You would have been too young to vote but Harold Wilson got elected and his government passed a raft of landmark legislation that tackled all sorts of inequalities.

I can barely remember much before Thatcher except electricity not being very reliable. Starmer seems a decent sort although he’s not very good at getting out there and actually opposing. One thing about Blair was he was never off the TV. You can go more than a week without hearing from Starmer. I’m still not even convinced he will make it to the election just because the Labour Party are so unreliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I can barely remember much before Thatcher except electricity not being very reliable. Starmer seems a decent sort although he’s not very good at getting out there and actually opposing. One thing about Blair was he was never off the TV. You can go more than a week without hearing from Starmer. I’m still not even convinced he will make it to the election just because the Labour Party are so unreliable.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkBlair had the backing of the, normally Tory, press. The main reason for that was he and Brown committed to the existing Tory trajectory for the economy. That wasn't Labour remember, it was New Labour.

There have been Labour manifestos which would be perfectly acceptable in most European countries, but if they stray off course in servicing the City of London's requirements they become unpalatable to the normally Tory press, which then renders them unelectable.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Maybe because until recently, we were handicapped by carrying Corbyn, McDonnell, Bailey-Long, Milne, Miurphy, their acolytes and all the iother entryists who turned an electable party into a ****storm that couldn't hold the Tories to account because it was caught up in navel-gazing and some ridiculous posturing on anti-semitism.

Labour has a tendency to go into self-destruct every generation or so, but it is better-served when the pretend members take back their three quid and go back to being really annoyed about something but not really clear about why.

Its a good, and instructive, exercise, to learn the lessons of Labour’s many electoral failures, including between 2015-2020. How do you assess Labours electoral failure between 2010-2015? The party wasn’t ‘electable’ in this period either. And more importantly, how do you suggest moving beyond the recent past, into a more positive and productive future?

[Mibbes Aye]

I can barely remember much before Thatcher except electricity not being very reliable. Starmer seems a decent sort although he’s not very good at getting out there and actually opposing. One thing about Blair was he was never off the TV. You can go more than a week without hearing from Starmer. I’m still not even convinced he will make it to the election just because the Labour Party are so unreliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rhink it is strategic. The Tories, as much as they are carcrashing, don't face any pressure to call an election.

Wise politics for Starmer is to allow them to divide - Cummings is ripping the party apart internally, plus the ever evident divide between the Civil Service and No.10

Someimes it is best to stand back and let the feuding be the lead story.

Give that a run and then forensically pick their performance apart. If he timing is right thenthe marginals will swing back.

And given we are in a rather curious set of circumstances, it is easy to imagine landslide votes - though we could see that go a mixture of ways depending on the optics

[Mibbes Aye]

Its a good, and instructive, exercise, to learn the lessons of Labour’s many electoral failures, including between 2015-2020. How do you assess Labours electoral failure between 2010-2015? The party wasn’t ‘electable’ in this period either. And more importantly, how do you suggest moving beyond the recent past, into a more positive and productive future?

Good questions. I am watching a film and enjoying some nice wine, so to do yout post justice it might be a reply tomorrow if okay :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Good questions. I am watching a film and enjoying some nice wine, so to do yout post justice it might be a reply tomorrow if okay :greengrin

I was hoping you’d say that :faf: Enjoy the film.

[Mibbes Aye]

I was hoping you’d say that :faf: Enjoy the film.

Film was good and then got caught up in some spin-off from Gomorrah that was movie-length!

Liked your post a lot and will take a stab at replying when I am more lucid and competent.

[neil7908]

I rhink it is strategic. The Tories, as much as they are carcrashing, don't face any pressure to call an election.

Wise politics for Starmer is to allow them to divide - Cummings is ripping the party apart internally, plus the ever evident divide between the Civil Service and No.10

Someimes it is best to stand back and let the feuding be the lead story.

Give that a run and then forensically pick their performance apart. If he timing is right thenthe marginals will swing back.

And given we are in a rather curious set of circumstances, it is easy to imagine landslide votes - though we could see that go a mixture of ways depending on the optics

Agree with this. We are a very, very long way from the next election. It may not be Boris going into the next one but it will be a Tory PM and its years away.

The Tories are doing a fine enough job displaying their own incompetence. I think Keir should keep doing what he's doing and make sure that they have a clear line on Brexit.

This has dropped off the agendas due to covid but it's going to be no deal soon and Labour needs to be play that carefully as its a one area I could see the Tories clawing back support, even if it's a disaster.

[Pretty Boy]

When it comes to Starmer and his support base you have to put things into some kind of context.

A poll among Labour members last month showed 77% though he was doing a good job and only 6% thought he was performing poorly. That 6% just happen to make a lot of noise on Twitter because they are still in the huff about Corbyn.

The choice, as it stands, at the next election is simple. 5 more years of the Tories and quite possibly Johnson or Labour under Starmer. It may well be that the latter option is 'just a continuation of the same old neo-Liberal consensus' but it's still the preferable option to anyone with something resembling a social conscience. If you live In England then not voting or spoiling your paper is a de facto vote for the Tories.

[JeMeSouviens]

When it comes to Starmer and his support base you have to put things into some kind of context.

A poll among Labour members last month showed 77% though he was doing a good job and only 6% thought he was performing poorly. That 6% just happen to make a lot of noise on Twitter because they are still in the huff about Corbyn.

The choice, as it stands, at the next election is simple. 5 more years of the Tories and quite possibly Johnson or Labour under Starmer. It may well be that the latter option is 'just a continuation of the same old neo-Liberal consensus' but it's still the preferable option to anyone with something resembling a social conscience. If you live In England then not voting or spoiling your paper is a de facto vote for the Tories.

Dom and Gove are using their frontman Bozo to attempt to smash up anything resembling consensus. The Tories are going/have gone the way of US Republicans.

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe because until recently, we were handicapped by carrying Corbyn, McDonnell, Bailey-Long, Milne, Miurphy, their acolytes and all the iother entryists who turned an electable party into a ****storm that couldn't hold the Tories to account because it was caught up in navel-gazing and some ridiculous posturing on anti-semitism.

Labour has a tendency to go into self-destruct every generation or so, but it is better-served when the pretend members take back their three quid and go back to being really annoyed about something but not really clear about why.

Who is this 'we' you speak of? 😉😁

[neil7908]

Dom and Gove are using their frontman Bozo to attempt to smash up anything resembling consensus. The Tories are going/have gone the way of US Republicans.

100%. All the stuff with Rule Britianna at the Proms is case in point. Totally irrelevant given our current government are lurching form crisis to crisis. But culture wars have been fertile ground for the right for many years. Expect to see more of that in the future. Especially post Brexit when they will have destroyed the economy.

[Hibrandenburg]

Who is this 'we' you speak of? 😉😁

:greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

:greengrin

You got it 👍😁

[Mibbes Aye]

Who is this 'we' you speak of? 😉😁

Hoist by my own petard :greengrin

I will defend it though, there is a very broad ‘we’ in the Labour movement. It doesn’t include people who vote several hundred times against their own party, and nor does it include entryists who take advantage of a three quid deal to elect people who vote several hundred times against their own party, but are happy to use the party as a means of getting a comfy salary, comfy work style and a cracking pension. And it doesn’t cover entryists who aren’t actually Labour but saw a hack towards trying to advance some militant agenda. And some of whom who managed to make the Labour narrative all about anti-semitism over the last few years when faced with an utterly incompetent Tory government.

But getting back to your point, semantics or linguistics, I think there is a difference using the word ‘we’ as a Labour Party member and the word ‘we’ being used to define everybody who lives in Scotland. If nothing else, being a Labour Party member is an active choice. Being born in Scotland is simply a matter of circumstance and doesn’t generate some simpatico with every other Scot, despite the fact that Nats would love that to be the case. I think 55% of voters saw that but you wouldn’t know it on here.

[ronaldo7]

Who is this 'we' you speak of? 😉😁

Touché

[Moulin Yarns]

Hoist by my own petard :greengrin

I will defend it though, there is a very broad ‘we’ in the Labour movement. It doesn’t include people who vote several hundred times against their own party, and nor does it include entryists who take advantage of a three quid deal to elect people who vote several hundred times against their own party, but are happy to use the party as a means of getting a comfy salary, comfy work style and a cracking pension. And it doesn’t cover entryists who aren’t actually Labour but saw a hack towards trying to advance some militant agenda. And some of whom who managed to make the Labour narrative all about anti-semitism over the last few years when faced with an utterly incompetent Tory government.

But getting back to your point, semantics or linguistics, I think there is a difference using the word ‘we’ as a Labour Party member and the word ‘we’ being used to define everybody who lives in Scotland. If nothing else, being a Labour Party member is an active choice. Being born in Scotland is simply a matter of circumstance and doesn’t generate some simpatico with every other Scot, despite the fact that Nats would love that to be the case. I think 55% of voters saw that but you wouldn’t know it on here.

Hey, we all gotta burden to carry. 😊

Thanks for taking it as it was intended 👍

❤️

[Mibbes Aye]

Hey, we all gotta burden to carry. 😊

Thanks for taking it as it was intended 👍

❤️

We disagree on here about lots but I think we personally agree about a lot more, than either of us realise :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Hoist by my own petard :greengrin

I will defend it though, there is a very broad ‘we’ in the Labour movement. It doesn’t include people who vote several hundred times against their own party, and nor does it include entryists who take advantage of a three quid deal to elect people who vote several hundred times against their own party, but are happy to use the party as a means of getting a comfy salary, comfy work style and a cracking pension. And it doesn’t cover entryists who aren’t actually Labour but saw a hack towards trying to advance some militant agenda. And some of whom who managed to make the Labour narrative all about anti-semitism over the last few years when faced with an utterly incompetent Tory government.

But getting back to your point, semantics or linguistics, I think there is a difference using the word ‘we’ as a Labour Party member and the word ‘we’ being used to define everybody who lives in Scotland. If nothing else, being a Labour Party member is an active choice. Being born in Scotland is simply a matter of circumstance and doesn’t generate some simpatico with every other Scot, despite the fact that Nats would love that to be the case. I think 55% of voters saw that but you wouldn’t know it on here.

It’s not being born in Scotland that’s important, it’s living here.
Don’t want to get into the ‘we’ argument again though, as it’s all a bit wee. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Its a good, and instructive, exercise, to learn the lessons of Labour’s many electoral failures, including between 2015-2020. How do you assess Labours electoral failure between 2010-2015? The party wasn’t ‘electable’ in this period either. And more importantly, how do you suggest moving beyond the recent past, into a more positive and productive future?

2010. GB was unelectable,despite being an intellectual giant. When history eventually catches up with itself there may be some acknowledgement for what he managed to do to control the financial crisis in 2008. Nevertheless the party had been in charge for thirteen years and a lot of soft Labour voters were tired. many annoyed over Iraq, a lot were just not loyal. Three terms is a long time and I think there were many marginals that were ripe for a swing.

2015. Ed simply didn’t get a clean break. He took on Murdoch, took on the Mail, took on the energy suppliers. And the carrying story from the election campaign is a bacon sandwich. He was stitched up. And even though he was New New Labour he was still seen as just New Labour. Bittersweet because he was the diplomat between the Blairites and the Brownites.

As for moving on from the ‘recent past’ is that a tacit acceptance of Corbyn’s damage to the Labour movement? Labour wins and wins massively when it positions itself slightly left of centre. It loses when it is lead by idiots.

It also has enacted life-changing and societal-changing legislation when in power.

[Mibbes Aye]

It’s not being born in Scotland that’s important, it’s living here.
Don’t want to get into the ‘we’ argument again though, as it’s all a bit wee. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is not really.

Identity is important and you or I don’t have the right to use the word ‘we’ to make some political point.

You don’t speak for me, I don’t speak for you.

What gives you or me the right to claim ‘we’?

Just cause we are Scottish. just cause we post,on dot net?

[Ozyhibby]

It is not really.

Identity is important and you or I don’t have the right to use the word ‘we’ to make some political point.

You don’t speak for me, I don’t speak for you.

What gives you or me the right to claim ‘we’?

Just cause we are Scottish. just cause we post,on dot net?

[emoji6][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

[emoji6][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn’t word it well but you can do a proper response when you find the time.

And you have never dealt with the ‘we’ position.

[ronaldo7]

Let's get this thread back on track and talk about the future of the Labour party.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you......James Kelly. 😂😂😂

Watch your back Richard.

[HibernianJK]

More strong calls for Richard Leonard to resign.

Opposition parties getting worried about the popularity of the SNP ahead of the SNP and seeking changes.

Labour is a lost cause is Scotland and really can’t see anyone changing that in time for next year.

[Mr Grieves]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18691293.james-kelly-scottish-labour-msp-quits-shadow-cabinet-calls-richard-leonard-resign/

James Kelly trying to force Leonard out..

[Moulin Yarns]

This made me chuckle on twitter

15 years from now Scottish Labour is going to be 12 people in a south Edinburgh pub furiously plotting to topple one another. Just an amazing, pointless internal melodrama played out, over and over again, in front of a bemused national audience.

[JeMeSouviens]

This made me chuckle on twitter

15 years from now Scottish Labour is going to be 12 people in a south Edinburgh pub furiously plotting to topple one another. Just an amazing, pointless internal melodrama played out, over and over again, in front of a bemused national audience.

I suppose we’re used to it but from even 10 years ago it’s incredible that the might of Scottish Labour is reduced to Kelly, Leotard etc and Ian Murray is what passes fir a political titan. They didn’t half fall hard and fast.

[Ozyhibby]

I listened to James Kelly on the radio this morning and every single point he made about Richard Leonard was spot on. He is totally uninspiring and has made zero impression on the Scottish public. What was interesting was that he didn’t say what was needed to fix it? He seemed to think just bringing in another leader would be enough.
The problem Labour have apart from a hopeless leader is that they have no way of delivering the things they stand for within the current constitutional settlement. You can’t offer socialism in Scotland if the Tories control the purse strings in London. The same applies to the SNP but they oppose the current set up, where as Labour support it.
So for all Leonard is absolutely hopeless at selling Labour, he also has a really terrible product to sell. Vote for us, we support giving control to the Tories in London.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eaststand]

I can barely remember much before Thatcher except electricity not being very reliable. Starmer seems a decent sort although he’s not very good at getting out there and actually opposing. One thing about Blair was he was never off the TV. You can go more than a week without hearing from Starmer. I’m still not even convinced he will make it to the election just because the Labour Party are so unreliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you really want some background about how we ended up with the Thatcher years, there's a brilliant series of 5 documentaries on the bbc iplayer called Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain.
It's made in an easy to view style and well worth a watch 👍

GGTTH

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53997003

Richard Leonard's days are numbered by the looks of things. Who next? They could choose a Scottish MP like their tory counterparts. 🤔😁

[Curried]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53997003

Richard Leonard's days are numbered by the looks of things. Who next? They could choose a Scottish MP like their tory counterparts. 🤔😁


Excellent idea MY...that should do the trick:-)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl3YvXjWYAAw7vm.jpg

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200902/633382a721d88cfc2bbbde9d044a0e48.jpg
Another resignation in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

leave richard alone he's doing a great job

[Keith_M]

Don't worry, Kezia and the gang are coming to take over...


23941

[Mr Grieves]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200902/633382a721d88cfc2bbbde9d044a0e48.jpg
Another resignation in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Genuinely never heard of him.

Really though, who wants to be leader with the impending Scottish election and potential catastrophe on the Horizon? Who would improve Scottish Labour? Anas Sarwar? Jackie Baillie? Iain Murray to do a Douglas Ross?

[JeMeSouviens]

Genuinely never heard of him.

Really though, who wants to be leader with the impending Scottish election and potential catastrophe on the Horizon? Who would improve Scottish Labour? Anas Sarwar? Jackie Baillie? Iain Murray to do a Douglas Ross?

... and until today, I thought Daniel Johnson was a Tory. :embarrass

[hibsbollah]

... and until today, I thought Daniel Johnson was a Tory. :embarrass

A man in the not unique position of having rejected me at interview once. Revenge will be mine:I'm waiti

[Keith_M]

A man in the not unique position of having rejected me at interview once. Revenge will be mine:I'm waiti


You surprise me


:wink:

[Tomsk]

... and until today, I thought Daniel Johnson was a Tory. :embarrass

Stage Manager: Joke About Red Tories, hurry up! You're on!

[lucky]

Unlike many on here I know them all. If James Kelly is the answer I really don’t know what the question is. Kelly was campaign manager for Jim Murphy. He was part of the cabal that there at helm when Labour lost its place in Scottish politics. He was also the guy who started the same crap against Johann Lamont. This move is all about positions on the list. They are all worried about their own jobs. Mark Griffin has been a MSP for 9 years and has achieved zero. Leonard is right that it’s time for new blood at Holyrood. Labour have been squeezed out of the debate on Scotland’s future. Labour want to talk politics but the country wants to talk constitution. Being pro devolution is no longer sustainable. Labour need to change its views on a referendum not change its leader. Nelson Mandela couldn’t achieve election success for Labour at this time. Labour’s place in talking and representing communities have been replace by the SNP. The people of Scotland’s politics haven’t change just the party to represent their views has.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-labour-leader-leonard-to-face-no-confidence-vote?top

No confidence motion submitted.

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-labour-leader-leonard-to-face-no-confidence-vote?top

No confidence motion submitted.

Just as they have had a bit of a boost with today’s poll showing them running 2nd in Scotland.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

BREAKING: The motion of no confidence in Richard Leonard has been withdrawn

https://t.co/d16pkScRh6


🐔🐔🐔🐔

[Saturday Boy]

BREAKING: The motion of no confidence in Richard Leonard has been withdrawn

https://t.co/d16pkScRh6


🐔🐔🐔🐔

In fairness, they realised that Abe Stain was never gonna be the man to rally the troops.

[weecounty hibby]

George Foulkes and Jackie Baillie. No more needs to be said really.

[greenlex]

Unlike many on here I know them all. If James Kelly is the answer I really don’t know what the question is. Kelly was campaign manager for Jim Murphy. He was part of the cabal that there at helm when Labour lost its place in Scottish politics. He was also the guy who started the same crap against Johann Lamont. This move is all about positions on the list. They are all worried about their own jobs. Mark Griffin has been a MSP for 9 years and has achieved zero. Leonard is right that it’s time for new blood at Holyrood. Labour have been squeezed out of the debate on Scotland’s future. Labour want to talk politics but the country wants to talk constitution. Being pro devolution is no longer sustainable. Labour need to change its views on a referendum not change its leader. Nelson Mandela couldn’t achieve election success for Labour at this time. Labour’s place in talking and representing communities have been replace by the SNP. The people of Scotland’s politics haven’t change just the party to represent their views has.
:agree:

[Just Alf]

Unlike many on here I know them all. If James Kelly is the answer I really don’t know what the question is. Kelly was campaign manager for Jim Murphy. He was part of the cabal that there at helm when Labour lost its place in Scottish politics. He was also the guy who started the same crap against Johann Lamont. This move is all about positions on the list. They are all worried about their own jobs. Mark Griffin has been a MSP for 9 years and has achieved zero. Leonard is right that it’s time for new blood at Holyrood. Labour have been squeezed out of the debate on Scotland’s future. Labour want to talk politics but the country wants to talk constitution. Being pro devolution is no longer sustainable. Labour need to change its views on a referendum not change its leader. Nelson Mandela couldn’t achieve election success for Labour at this time. Labour’s place in talking and representing communities have been replace by the SNP. The people of Scotland’s politics haven’t change just the party to represent their views has.Just read this.. I think you've nailed it .

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/12/labour-will-back-new-brexit-legislation-if-pm-addresses-concerns-says-starmer?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Labours commitment to devolution wavering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/12/labour-will-back-new-brexit-legislation-if-pm-addresses-concerns-says-starmer?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Labours commitment to devolution wavering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely the opposite? The article clearly states they will only back the bill if the devolved administrations concerns are addressed and the bill is amended.

[Ozyhibby]

Surely the opposite? The article clearly states they will only back the bill if the devolved administrations concerns are addressed and the bill is amended.

Ah, you are correct. I somehow missed that line in the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

Surely the opposite? The article clearly states they will only back the bill if the devolved administrations concerns are addressed and the bill is amended.

I had my doubts about Starmer but he is proving to be more than up to the task of providing effective opposition in Westminster, something that has been sadly lacking for far too long. He already looks like a Prime Minister in waiting.

[Pretty Boy]

Ah, you are correct. I somehow missed that line in the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if you have read Starmers article for the Telegraph. It's an interesting read.

As much as I disliked him writing a piece for the Mail the other week I do quite like his willingness to 'attack' Johnson on his own turf. Appealing directly to some of the wavering Tories who will make up a chunk of the Telegraph readership is a smart move.

[G B Young]

BREAKING: The motion of no confidence in Richard Leonard has been withdrawn

https://t.co/d16pkScRh6


🐔🐔🐔🐔

They'll remain an irrelevance in Scotland with Mr Anonymous in charge but then who is there to replace him with the clout to make any real difference?

[hibsbollah]

‘Stop Banging On About Brexit and Lets Defeat Covid’ says Starmers Observer editorial yesterday. Really peculiar. Is he expecting everyone to forget he was all behind having a second referendum, said the first one was non binding, merely guidance etc? It’s almost like he’s got nothing to say about breaking international law, no deal calamity and pathological lying.

[Hiber-nation]

‘Stop Banging On About Brexit and Lets Defeat Covid’ says Starmers Observer editorial yesterday. Really peculiar. Is he expecting everyone to forget he was all behind having a second referendum, said the first one was non binding, merely guidance etc? It’s almost like he’s got nothing to say about breaking international law, no deal calamity and pathological lying.

Yep, I didn't get that at all. The Guardian etc. are trying hard to big him up but he's not made any inroads whatsoever on BJ despite good performances at PMQs against the most inept clown ever to disgrace no 10. He has to have more of a media presence, it's essential. I doubt if half of those down South who've switched from Labour to Tory even know who he is.

[Ozyhibby]

Yep, I didn't get that at all. The Guardian etc. are trying hard to big him up but he's not made any inroads whatsoever on BJ despite good performances at PMQs against the most inept clown ever to disgrace no 10. He has to have more of a media presence, it's essential. I doubt if half of those down South who've switched from Labour to Tory even know who he is.

Totally agree. He hasn’t really impressed me at all except at PMQ’s. William Hague regularly bested Tony Blair at PMQ’s and a fat lot of good that did him. I doubt the average person in the street have even noticed Starmer yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Yep, I didn't get that at all. The Guardian etc. are trying hard to big him up but he's not made any inroads whatsoever on BJ despite good performances at PMQs against the most inept clown ever to disgrace no 10. He has to have more of a media presence, it's essential. I doubt if half of those down South who've switched from Labour to Tory even know who he is.

If you’re coach Starmer and the opposition are down to ten men, no goalie (or Klamal between the sticks), why is the tactic to pass it around amongst your back four for the rest of the second half?

#footballmetaphor.com

[Smartie]

If you’re coach Starmer and the opposition are down to ten men, no goalie (or Klamal between the sticks), why is the tactic to pass it around amongst your back four for the rest of the second half?

#footballmetaphor.com

He’s impressed me so far, by and large, but I wonder if he’s lacking that ultra-cynical killer instinct that we all need him to have right now?

The current government is a vulnerable, bloated mess. I don’t think he should be thinking twice about really going for them.

He might never get a better opportunity.

[Hibrandenburg]

Totally agree. He hasn’t really impressed me at all except at PMQ’s. William Hague regularly bested Tony Blair at PMQ’s and a fat lot of good that did him. I doubt the average person in the street have even noticed Starmer yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here, I'd just presumed he's keeping his powder dry until the time is right. We're 4 years away from the next election and with an 80 seat majority in the house, there is little chance of effective opposition other than jabbing away at Johnson's government and tiring them enough to land a KO in the closing rounds.