advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

So pandering to racists and the far-right is the way to go? How about standing up to this shit and taking a clear stand against it? Isn't that what Labour are supposed to be doing? Isn't that the definition of the word 'opposition'?
So ‘standing up to this shit’ by making a bit of a noise and appeasing uncompromising idealists who dislike the party anyway, improving the chances of the tories to continue in govt through to 2028/29, is the way to go?

My preference is for Labour to give itself the best chance possible of removing the tories next year. In my opinion, ‘standing up to this shit’ is doing what it takes to remove the tories at the next election.
 
Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, actually abstained on the Tories vile Illegal Migrants Bill last night (UK Parliament). WTAF?

The page you link to show those members with "no vote recorded", not "abstained".

"A Member may wish to abstain, or have a procedural reason for not voting. Members can be absent carrying out constituency or ministerial business, or be unable to attend for other reasons."

So abstention is one reason but not the only reason.
 
The page you link to show those members with "no vote recorded", not "abstained".

"A Member may wish to abstain, or have a procedural reason for not voting. Members can be absent carrying out constituency or ministerial business, or be unable to attend for other reasons."

So abstention is one reason but not the only reason.

True, I just find it bizarre that an ex-lawyer party leader would fail to vote against a bill of vile Daily Mail-grade popularism and cruelty that is clearly in breach of international law. If nothing else the optics are awful.
 
True, I just find it bizarre that an ex-lawyer party leader would fail to vote against a bill of vile Daily Mail-grade popularism and cruelty that is clearly in breach of international law. If nothing else the optics are awful.

I think you'll find he was 'paired' with the absent Sunak. If an MP is absent and can't vote, their paired MP does the same.
 
True, I just find it bizarre that an ex-lawyer party leader would fail to vote against a bill of vile Daily Mail-grade popularism and cruelty that is clearly in breach of international law. If nothing else the optics are awful.

I don't know the reason, but it may be as simple as he couldn't make the vote. I'm not excusing what he's done - given that Labour MPs were whipped to vote against, it looks odd.

[edit]

Just seen @Graham B's post above. That explains it.
 
https://conservativehome.com/2023/0...nd-the-threat-to-democracy-posed-by-localism/

Martin Crick on the candidate selection process.

"Crick describes the “purge” of Labour candidates which is being conducted by the party’s National Executive Committee: “the Labour Left has been utterly annihilated,” and so too has “anybody with a strong trade union background”, but the powers that be “don’t do it in a very professional manner in my view”."
 
https://conservativehome.com/2023/0...nd-the-threat-to-democracy-posed-by-localism/

Martin Crick on the candidate selection process.

"Crick describes the “purge” of Labour candidates which is being conducted by the party’s National Executive Committee: “the Labour Left has been utterly annihilated,” and so too has “anybody with a strong trade union background”, but the powers that be “don’t do it in a very professional manner in my view”."

Thanks. I got two things out of that. One is that local selection is inappropriate because it makes it less likely that MPs will be potentially good ministers. I’m not saying the logic is right, just that it’s an argument I’ve not come across before.

And second, I was really amused by the reference to Westminster (school) because I’ve not heard people talk like that for so long that it seems a really old fashioned way of thinking to me - but it isn’t, on the contrary. I don’t mix with as many establishment types as I used to.

Then you’ve got Hamish Falconer, who’s got a Foreign Office background, he’s in my view the number one Labour star, son of Charlie, went to Westminster, he’ll be Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary five years into the next Labour Government.
 
Please desist with inconvenient truths - this is the Starmer-bashing/Corbyn-resurrection thread.

Pairing of leaders may be tradition but sending vulnerable people thousands of miles away to be looked after by Kagame is surely a tradition worth breaking? After all it can't be any worse than the tories breaking the tradition of not publicising end of term jokey messages about running out of money.
Starmer really did arrive in an empty taxi.
 
Thanks. I got two things out of that. One is that local selection is inappropriate because it makes it less likely that MPs will be potentially good ministers. I’m not saying the logic is right, just that it’s an argument I’ve not come across before.

And second, I was really amused by the reference to Westminster (school) because I’ve not heard people talk like that for so long that it seems a really old fashioned way of thinking to me - but it isn’t, on the contrary. I don’t mix with as many establishment types as I used to.

Then you’ve got Hamish Falconer, who’s got a Foreign Office background, he’s in my view the number one Labour star, son of Charlie, went to Westminster, he’ll be Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary five years into the next Labour Government.
Was puzzled by this thing about the evils of “local selection” because he was pretty clear that the selection process is just 3 or 4 right wingers from the National Executive plus a couple of their mates from Region picking another of their mates. What he means by localism is the preference for *local candidates*, not local selection as such. Personally I don’t thing there’s anything much wrong as a rule with a candidate having a meaningful connection with local residents. But it’s obviously a problem if you’re limiting your candidates to right wing ****s who are cronies with with the NEC and have a background in defence or think tanks.

The whole thing is astonishingly self-defeating. Labour going out of their way to make the party’s appeal and legitimacy as narrow and artificial as possible. It’s not the way to build support and resilience for the party as a whole. It’s what a paranoid faction does when it knows it can’t maintain control on the basis of popular support and participation. Labour and the country as a whole are going to pay a big price for indulging these people.
 
Some comments from the Corbyn Collective in 2019:

One senior source said the group would “embed Corbynism” and could form a powerful voting bloc – whether Labour won or lost the election – to ensure the party did not return to the days of Blairism.

Another party insider said: “The Tory ERG [European Research Group] have shown how a disciplined group of MPs can shape a party. That’s what we want to do too.”

Seems the comrades were actively trying to suppress the more successful wing of the party. Certainly narrowing the party's appeal and legitimacy. Not sure what to make of the ERG comment. Maybe adds some context to Corbyn's views on the EU.
 
Some comments from the Corbyn Collective in 2019:

One senior source said the group would “embed Corbynism” and could form a powerful voting bloc – whether Labour won or lost the election – to ensure the party did not return to the days of Blairism.

Another party insider said: “The Tory ERG [European Research Group] have shown how a disciplined group of MPs can shape a party. That’s what we want to do too.”

Seems the comrades were actively trying to suppress the more successful wing of the party. Certainly narrowing the party's appeal and legitimacy. Not sure what to make of the ERG comment. Maybe adds some context to Corbyn's views on the EU.
What the shitting hell are you on about? You won. Gerroverit!
 


advertisement


Back
Top