Page 41 of 98
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:11 am
by Crabcakes
I’m bewildered as to why Corbyn’s fans are saying this should get him the whip back. Did he get a bit of a bum deal? Sure. Is that bum deal linked to why he lost the whip? No.
It’s like saying you should let a steroid-chugging runner who was caught cheating compete again because an assistant who didn’t like him once gave him the wrong shoes.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:06 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Here's a thread on the Forde Report
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:13 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:57 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Only for a given value of kicking.
Who is Daniella Blake and why should I care about her opinion?
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:21 pm
by Andy McDandy
Assuming it's a riff on the Ken Loach film, "I, Daniel Blake".
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:47 pm
by Youngian
Nationalising energy may become a national security imperative but is it the best mechanism for stabilising prices? Might be cheaper to give the market survivors some compo money. Tax credits as they’re called in the US.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:53 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:57 pm
Only for a given value of kicking.
Who is Daniella Blake and why should I care about her opinion?
Why is it whenever I post a tweet I have to give a detailed biography of that person? The reason why you should care is that people were getting arsey over comments Rachel Reeves made about nationalisation.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:53 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
For the simple reason that some sources are more reliable or significant than others. Some are trivial. You take them all at face value.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:02 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Before anyone gets huffy and demands who is this person and why should I care what they think. Just consider the scenario that they've outlined because I believe it could happen and is likely to happen.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:09 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
This person claims to come from the planet of the Wookies...
Their statement is pretty meaningless - that we don't know how Labour supporters will react in some hypothetical situation.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:15 pm
by Abernathy
Well, Malcolm is right about it being hypothetical, but I should think most Labour supporters would be in a state of some despair, don't you?
I think that the outcome described is certainly possible, but somewhat unlikely, given where the Labour Party is now, despite the best efforts of the Trots to engineer derailment.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:43 pm
by The Weeping Angel
First off he doesn't claim to be from the planet of the wookies. Secondly if you click on the tweet and scroll down he says this
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:14 pm
by Abernathy
Well, there's no doubt about it. Even a narrow defeat would still be Labour's fifth successive defeat (thanks, Jeremy), and would be indeed be a catastrophe - particularly for the country. There would be questions to answer, but I wouldn't expect Starmer to fall on his sword in those circumstances either. After all, Jezferatu did not resign after leading the party to an allegedly narrow (it wasn't really) defeat in 2017.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:07 pm
by Crabcakes
If I’m brutally honest I’d prefer a minority government as it would increase the likelihood of reform to the FPTP system in exchange for goods & services etc. But to be honest if Truss is in charge, and Boris is sniping from the sidelines with an eye to a triumphant (in his eyes) return, I can only see the direction of travel going one way.
Truss might get a tiny bounce, but given she’ll be getting in in September and people will very soon after that start to get winter utility bills, that’ll evaporate faster than dry ice on a Heathrow runway last Tuesday.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:17 pm
by Arrowhead
It's not very often that I recommend a Twitter account to follow, but here is an excellent one which I think many of you may find interesting: Tomorrow's MPs (@tomorrowsmps), run by the former Channel 4 News political correspondent Michael Crick. A useful resource for monitoring which prospective parliamentary candidates are being selected for various seats ahead of the next GE.
The reason why I have highlighted the account in this section of the forum is because Labour are currently picking a number of early selections in what are regarded as winnable seats.
One revealing aspect of this has been the apparent collapse of the Corbyn faction in the process so far; of around 25 candidates already chosen, only one (Faiza Shaheen, picked to take on Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford & Woodford Green) is identifiably of the Corbyn left. In fact, there are even some existing Corbynite MPs who are facing reselection battles - Sam Tarry we already knew about, but it seems Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) is also facing an uncertain future.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:24 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Wasn't Tarry a LOTO Parachutist?
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:26 pm
by Abernathy
Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:24 pm
Wasn't Tarry a LOTO Parachutist?
Indeed he was. Another attention seeking Trot disruptor.
Can't Angie have a fucking word ?
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:35 pm
by Arrowhead
Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:24 pm
Wasn't Tarry a LOTO Parachutist?
Yep, seemingly so. I’m not so sure why Ian Byrne suddenly finds himself in a reselection scrap, however. Unlike Tarry, I don’t seem to remember his candidacy being especially controversial.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:58 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:26 pm
Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:24 pm
Wasn't Tarry a LOTO Parachutist?
Indeed he was. Another attention seeking Trot disruptor.
Can't Angie have a fucking word ?
Yes and his rival for the selection was conveniently suspended on the eve of the hustings.
Re: Labour, generally.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:47 pm
by Crabcakes
It’ll be funny to see how suddenly, mandatory reselection is an absolutely terrible thing.