Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Cyclist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 9:44 pm The Jezzarites kept talking about a purge. Well, it looks like they might get one

I'm not clued up enough about the inner machinations of the Labour Party to know whether this is either a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. But there sure seems to be a LOT of people spitting feathers on Twitter tonight.

Does anybody know much about the groups involved? 'Labour in Exile' doesn't sound like much of anything.

I'm working on the assumption that Keir isn't stupid and won't be trying to get rid of people who actively support the Labour Party and are trying to rebuild after the disastrous result of the Corbyn Experiment.

The groups listed in the article would appear to comprise of the Three Quid Trots who did so much damage in 4 1/2 years, and during a recent by-election actively encouraged people to vote for a poisonous non-Labour candidate.

Getting rid of, and being seen to be getting rid of these snakes in the grass who should never have been admitted to the Party in the first place, can only be a Good Thing for Labour.

Cyclist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 9:44 pm I hope this is true. I really hope this is true. Please please PLEASE let this be true

NEWS
Keir Starmer set to expel 1,000 far left Labour members in four ‘poisonous’ groups
EXCLUSIVE

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... 557627.amp

The Jezzarites kept talking about a purge. Well, it looks like they might get one

I was very wrong to believe voters don’t pay attention to this fringe nonsense. This will do Keir no end of good with the electorate. Starmer should be filmed giving some their matching orders personally. That it’ll make the news cycle.

Don’t know why people are getting arsey with the Blackpool participants in Keir’s meet the people with Laura K. Apart from the two moany bollocks going on about ‘kids today,’ many of the criticisms of Labour were thoughtful, justified and ones that are aired on this site. They looked like they got Starmer now they’ve met him and integrity office was important to these voters.

It's bad faith bollocks. Pick out the couple of silly quotes and make out Keir agrees with them.

The young people stuff has been picked up on as evidence Starmer has no policies for young people.

Apart from spending £13bn more educational catch up, no policies for young people.

And of course, if he did unveil a few policies for young people, the same voices would be going "patronising wanker".

As quite a lot of people said on Twitter about the "purge", in 1985 expelling Militant didn't make Kinnock many friends within the party, but it did a world of good out on the street.

"Policies for young people" basically means free university fees to Jez partisans. Rayner to her credit called this out.

This is sub Galloway standard.

Is that Leonard Nimoy? Shaking off his Vulcan persona.

John Redwood?

I've just learned that people like that are "simply asking for the whip to be restored to Jeremy Corbyn".

Somebody explain to me how the Twitter Left aren't deliberately trying to lose.



This is what Labour said.

Ms Nandy added that the government’s long-term plan for the NHS originally budgeted a 2.1 per cent pay rise.

“That is what nurses were promised and last year they legislated for that in order to give nurses a cast-iron guarantee that after years of seeing their real-terms pay fall, that the government would finally reverse that decision and start to see their pay increase,” she said.

“We think they ought to go into these negotiations at a bare minimum of honouring that promise of a 2.1 per cent [increase] and then consider what more they can offer to our NHS staff who have done so much to put their families and themselves at risk every day going into work – some of them have died."

Now, there's no figure given by Labour there, and if you didn't follow politics, you might well think 2.1% was a firm commitment by Labour. But this guy, and lots like him follow politics extremely closely.

I think this is wilful on lots of their part.

Who is this Phil BC? Clicking on his profile link just takes you to a picture of the last five Tory PMs and an advert for a book. Is there any reason I'm supposed to take what this person says seriously? If so, what?

He's reasonably well known.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:He's reasonably well known.

Thank you for your informative response. If you don't want me or anyone else who's not heard of him to know, just say so.

I've never heard of him.

Is he in any way significant?

He's quite well known, apparently. But so is Tommeh Waxy-Lemon. And Attila the Hun.

Cyclist wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:24 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:He's reasonably well known.

Thank you for your informative response. If you don't want me or anyone else who's not heard of him to know, just say so.

Just thought he was interesting as typical, nothing specific about him. Please forget!

Cyclist wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:03 pm Who is this Phil BC? Clicking on his profile link just takes you to a picture of the last five Tory PMs and an advert for a book. Is there any reason I'm supposed to take what this person says seriously? If so, what?

He is a longtime Labour activist who runs a relatively high profile left wing blog (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/), which was occasionally covered on the old Mailwatch forum.

I used to quite enjoy his insights, but I lost interest once the Corbyn experiment went pear-shaped and he seemed to become increasingly bitter.

Is he one of the "15% pay rise" crowd?

I bet Mark Drakeford loves that campaign.

Thank you @Arrowhead . That's much appreciated.