Keir Starmer

the hard left warriors are threatened by Staermer, because they know he’s given Labour an actual chance of winning

They’d rather a radical socialist leader that doesn’t have a chance of winning so they can continue shouting and moaning about the tories from the sidelines.
I am not threatened by Starmer, a Labour Government under him would be status quo continued, that is why the media like him, he is no threat to the status quo. Funnily enough I was watching RT before and Ken Livingstone backs Starmer, as I am sure a lot of the left will, because the hard left "warriors" are the ones who are loyal to the party, its the centrist cry babies who stamp their feet and stage coups when they cant get there own way. Me, I will not be voting for him, because my views are different to his and I do not believe in voting for least worst. I want to vote for first best.
 
Where as your Baphomet went to war on a lie and caused the deaths and relocations of millions and the rise of ISIS.

A labour party of Imperialistic endeavour is not a Labour party that should ever exist. It should exist to promote Socialism, social justice and equality for the working class
Lame. Blair should be prosecuted full stop. End of. Not sure what your argument is? It's just bile.

I am a product of socialism. The benefits I have derived from life are because of socialism. Free education, healthcare and decent social housing. The post war government was extremely successful at transforming life chances for many. As a generation our aspirations and jobs have changed. A shame the definition of socialism hasnt grown and changed with it. Yours is an An old language for an old ideology. Socialism is now equally antiquated. The language is rooted in manufacturing and industrial revolution neither of which reflects today's reality. Russell identified that socialism as defined by the Labour party was anti marxist. It looked to soften the excess of capitalism. Not overthrow it.
The only people calling themselves these labels are stuck in a time warp and a different century.You lost us fkn Blyth FFS along with a slew of former safe seats. Corbyn lost the argument against Johnson and the most inept government. But it was all the MSM fault... Boohoohoo. Truth is, the few that did vote Labour included loads that did so reluctantly. The left is fucked and fucked over by idealogs instead of pragmatists. Giveus power to do a little bit of good over no power at all.
The changes you describe would require an uprising. The power brokers are too powerful to allow it to happen democratically. Do you feel the 'masses' that voted largely Tory are ready for a socialist revolution? (Genuine question)
 
Lame. Blair should be prosecuted full stop. End of. Not sure what your argument is? It's just bile.

I am a product of socialism. The benefits I have derived from life are because of socialism. Free education, healthcare and decent social housing. The post war government was extremely successful at transforming life chances for many. As a generation our aspirations and jobs have changed. A shame the definition of socialism hasnt grown and changed with it. Yours is an An old language for an old ideology. Socialism is now equally antiquated. The language is rooted in manufacturing and industrial revolution neither of which reflects today's reality. Russell identified that socialism as defined by the Labour party was anti marxist. It looked to soften the excess of capitalism. Not overthrow it.
The only people calling themselves these labels are stuck in a time warp and a different century.You lost us fkn Blyth FFS along with a slew of former safe seats. Corbyn lost the argument against Johnson and the most inept government. But it was all the MSM fault... Boohoohoo. Truth is, the few that did vote Labour included loads that did so reluctantly. The left is fucked and fucked over by idealogs instead of pragmatists. Giveus power to do a little bit of good over no power at all.
The changes you describe would require an uprising. The power brokers are too powerful to allow it to happen democratically. Do you feel the 'masses' that voted largely Tory are ready for a socialist revolution? (Genuine question)
I think we are almost moving back to a pre (first WW) war situation with the two main parties being tory and what used to be liberal which was basically a slightly more compassionate tory party. Due to the failure of the Lib Dems to occupy this ground successfully it falls to Starmers remodelled 'labour party'. That may indeed be as far left as the electorate are prepared to stomach at present. The actual left will go back to their early 20th C position as actual socialists, but regarded and vilified as Bolsheviks/Commies or whatever the becomes the new pejorative for union led socialism that presents any threat to capitalism.
 
Lame. Blair should be prosecuted full stop. End of. Not sure what your argument is? It's just bile.

I am a product of socialism. The benefits I have derived from life are because of socialism. Free education, healthcare and decent social housing. The post war government was extremely successful at transforming life chances for many. As a generation our aspirations and jobs have changed. A shame the definition of socialism hasnt grown and changed with it. Yours is an An old language for an old ideology. Socialism is now equally antiquated. The language is rooted in manufacturing and industrial revolution neither of which reflects today's reality. Russell identified that socialism as defined by the Labour party was anti marxist. It looked to soften the excess of capitalism. Not overthrow it.
The only people calling themselves these labels are stuck in a time warp and a different century.You lost us fkn Blyth FFS along with a slew of former safe seats. Corbyn lost the argument against Johnson and the most inept government. But it was all the MSM fault... Boohoohoo. Truth is, the few that did vote Labour included loads that did so reluctantly. The left is fucked and fucked over by idealogs instead of pragmatists. Giveus power to do a little bit of good over no power at all.
The changes you describe would require an uprising. The power brokers are too powerful to allow it to happen democratically. Do you feel the 'masses' that voted largely Tory are ready for a socialist revolution? (Genuine question)
Lets do the time warp dance. I am on record on here BTW stating Corbyn was a bit too right wing for me. That may help you see where I come from. I am off to bed, I am tired and I have an early start in the morning, bare with me and I will reply tomorrow.
 
Would be a good opportunity for Starmer to express his condolences with the victims in Vienna tonight in the way that the Conservative Party have, especially given his own party's problems with antisemitism.

Maybe I've just missed his announcements but he seems strangely quiet on the recent spate of terror attacks and beheadings.
 
Lame. Blair should be prosecuted full stop. End of. Not sure what your argument is? It's just bile.

I am a product of socialism. The benefits I have derived from life are because of socialism. Free education, healthcare and decent social housing. The post war government was extremely successful at transforming life chances for many. As a generation our aspirations and jobs have changed. A shame the definition of socialism hasnt grown and changed with it. Yours is an An old language for an old ideology. Socialism is now equally antiquated. The language is rooted in manufacturing and industrial revolution neither of which reflects today's reality. Russell identified that socialism as defined by the Labour party was anti marxist. It looked to soften the excess of capitalism. Not overthrow it.
The only people calling themselves these labels are stuck in a time warp and a different century.You lost us fkn Blyth FFS along with a slew of former safe seats. Corbyn lost the argument against Johnson and the most inept government. But it was all the MSM fault... Boohoohoo. Truth is, the few that did vote Labour included loads that did so reluctantly. The left is fucked and fucked over by idealogs instead of pragmatists. Giveus power to do a little bit of good over no power at all.
The changes you describe would require an uprising. The power brokers are too powerful to allow it to happen democratically. Do you feel the 'masses' that voted largely Tory are ready for a socialist revolution? (Genuine question)
We are all products of Socialism, it is all around us, look out of your window and you will see Socialism, drive your car and you will witness Socialism. Society is a social construct and Socialism can help organise society along the lines of the French Republics, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

Labour has become anti-Marxist as it was dragged rightwards as the Overton window changed in the 70s and the social consensus of the Post WW2 settlement was overhauled by the new Hayekian move to Neo-liberalism inspired by the Chicago and Frankfurt schools of economic thought and developed by the rise of the Think Tanks promoting the virtues of the free market and capitalism. Labour accepted the free market under Blair and it became comfortable with wealth inequality and did nothing to stop the demonization and castration of the Unions. It is a fact that when Union strength was at its greatest, inequality was at its lowest. Labour did nothing to stop the decline of Social Housing, if anything it promoted it and the sale of the social housing stock has lead to even greater wealth inequality and we are now at a situation where the chances of owning a new home for youngsters is virtually non existant. If there was a Socialist government committed to rebuilding the social housing stock it would not only create jobs for traditional working class trades it would give everyone a place to live and the disgusting sight of people without a home of there own sleeping roughshod on the streets of the nation could be countered.

You decry these things as old and out of touch, as Socialism being the language of the past, tell that to the kid sleeping on the streets of Manchester in the middle of winter, tell that to the family who feels humiliation as they visit a food bank to feed their kids, this isn't ideology, its common decency and its affordable in the 5th largest economy on the planet. Common decency losing elections is not the fault of Socialist ideology, its the product of years of demonization of the left using the terms you have used, programmed almost Macarthy like into our brains by the Capitalist system. Why on earth anybody who considers them on the left would vote for capitalism and all its wasteful excess, its iniquities, consolidation of power in those with wealth who want what little wealth you have too is beyond me. The propaganda is powerful though and it works, Socialism scares those with power and wealth because Socialism can balance out the power and wealth and give you, me, ordinary people an equal opportunity in life to do what can with our lives. Equality of opportunity is what is required, but you will see it described as equality of outcome. That shows a distinct misunderstanding of one the tenets of Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" receive from each person what that person's ability allows him/her to give and to give to a person according to his/her needs are. It comes from the Communist Manifesto by Marx, it means that all things shall be equal. Everybody contributes what they can, and takes only what they need rather than the society we have where the wealthy take the majority and the poor take the least.

You may see Socialism as an old ideology that needs updating into a modern form but the basic tenets of it are still relevant today, Marx has probably never been more relevant. As capitalism replaced Feudalism, capitalism itself will be replaced and hopefully common sense and decency for all will prevail and Socialism will be the new order.
 
We are all products of Socialism, it is all around us, look out of your window and you will see Socialism, drive your car and you will witness Socialism. Society is a social construct and Socialism can help organise society along the lines of the French Republics, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

Labour has become anti-Marxist as it was dragged rightwards as the Overton window changed in the 70s and the social consensus of the Post WW2 settlement was overhauled by the new Hayekian move to Neo-liberalism inspired by the Chicago and Frankfurt schools of economic thought and developed by the rise of the Think Tanks promoting the virtues of the free market and capitalism. Labour accepted the free market under Blair and it became comfortable with wealth inequality and did nothing to stop the demonization and castration of the Unions. It is a fact that when Union strength was at its greatest, inequality was at its lowest. Labour did nothing to stop the decline of Social Housing, if anything it promoted it and the sale of the social housing stock has lead to even greater wealth inequality and we are now at a situation where the chances of owning a new home for youngsters is virtually non existant. If there was a Socialist government committed to rebuilding the social housing stock it would not only create jobs for traditional working class trades it would give everyone a place to live and the disgusting sight of people without a home of there own sleeping roughshod on the streets of the nation could be countered.

You decry these things as old and out of touch, as Socialism being the language of the past, tell that to the kid sleeping on the streets of Manchester in the middle of winter, tell that to the family who feels humiliation as they visit a food bank to feed their kids, this isn't ideology, its common decency and its affordable in the 5th largest economy on the planet. Common decency losing elections is not the fault of Socialist ideology, its the product of years of demonization of the left using the terms you have used, programmed almost Macarthy like into our brains by the Capitalist system. Why on earth anybody who considers them on the left would vote for capitalism and all its wasteful excess, its iniquities, consolidation of power in those with wealth who want what little wealth you have too is beyond me. The propaganda is powerful though and it works, Socialism scares those with power and wealth because Socialism can balance out the power and wealth and give you, me, ordinary people an equal opportunity in life to do what can with our lives. Equality of opportunity is what is required, but you will see it described as equality of outcome. That shows a distinct misunderstanding of one the tenets of Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" receive from each person what that person's ability allows him/her to give and to give to a person according to his/her needs are. It comes from the Communist Manifesto by Marx, it means that all things shall be equal. Everybody contributes what they can, and takes only what they need rather than the society we have where the wealthy take the majority and the poor take the least.

You may see Socialism as an old ideology that needs updating into a modern form but the basic tenets of it are still relevant today, Marx has probably never been more relevant. As capitalism replaced Feudalism, capitalism itself will be replaced and hopefully common sense and decency for all will prevail and Socialism will be the new order.
So Marxists are the only people who really care about the homeless and are the only decent human beings? Forsooth.

Everybody else is programmed. Only Marxists can see the truth of it all? Gadzooks.


By the way. Labour accepted capitalism way before Blair. When we went cap in hand to America in 47 to be financially bailed out post war.

What's your take on Jacinda?
Wow. Just discovered Jacinda auto corrects to Haceinda... Cool. she use to be a club DJ apparently.
 
Last edited:
So Marxists are the only people who really care about the homeless and are the only decent human beings? Forsooth.

Everybody else is programmed. Only Marxists can see the truth of it all? Gadzooks.


By the way. Labour accepted capitalism way before Blair. When we went cap in hand to America in 47 to be financially bailed out post war.

What's your take on Jacinda?
Wow. Just discovered Jacinda auto corrects to Haceinda... Cool. she use to be a club DJ apparently.
No, One nation Conservatives also care, all political parties care to some degree, but have differing priorities. Marxism is more class based analysis and about the working class struggle . Capitalism and its extreme form Neo-liberalism are I would argue two are different things and capitalism has been around since forever in some form or another but so has Socialism in some form or another . Lenin was in favour of a small amount of capitalism, as in private shops etc, Capitalism can co-exist with Socialism to a degree, neo-liberalism and Socialism are incompatible, which was the reason I became a leaver. The more extreme capitalism becomes, the freer the market becomes the more I believe Socialism is relevant because it is the antidote to capitalist excess.

I have no thoughts on Jacinda, I know nothing about her. I did used to go to the Hac though in my youth.
 
Would be a good opportunity for Starmer to express his condolences with the victims in Vienna tonight in the way that the Conservative Party have, especially given his own party's problems with antisemitism.

Maybe I've just missed his announcements but he seems strangely quiet on the recent spate of terror attacks and beheadings.

Better late than never.



Don't think any condemnation will be forthcoming though for the beheading of Samuel Paty.
 
Would be a good opportunity for Starmer to express his condolences with the victims in Vienna tonight in the way that the Conservative Party have, especially given his own party's problems with antisemitism.

Maybe I've just missed his announcements but he seems strangely quiet on the recent spate of terror attacks and beheadings.

Yes he should certainly be playing to the gallery here
 
Better late than never.



Don't think any condemnation will be forthcoming though for the beheading of Samuel Paty.

FFS mate, do you have a list of things he has to do? I'm not a fan of Starmer, but having a list of things he has to say in order to signal his own credentials is exactly the same shit that the CAA are imposing on people.
 
FFS mate, do you have a list of things he has to do? I'm not a fan of Starmer, but having a list of things he has to say in order to signal his own credentials is exactly the same shit that the CAA are imposing on people.

The problem for Starmer is that people view elements of the Labour Party as being sympathetic to this sort of stuff or less willing to criticise ethnic minorities (not Jews) or minority religions no matter what atrocity or abuse is carried out. That's less his making but the previous leaderships in combination with many Labour-led councils across the country who turned a blind eye to many horrific acts due to the ethnicity/religion of the perpetrator.

Here would have provided him with the perfect opportunity not just to dispel them views but more importantly, to stand alongside the right of the French state to remain secular and for people to freely express criticism of mythical/semi-mythical figures.

I think it's a missed opportunity.
 
The problem for Starmer is that people view elements of the Labour Party as being sympathetic to this sort of stuff or less willing to criticise ethnic minorities (not Jews) or minority religions no matter what atrocity or abuse is carried out. That's less his making but the previous leaderships in combination with many Labour-led councils across the country who turned a blind eye to many horrific acts due to the ethnicity/religion of the perpetrator.

Here would have provided him with the perfect opportunity not just to dispel them views but more importantly, to stand alongside the right of the French state to remain secular and for people to freely express criticism of mythical/semi-mythical figures.

I think it's a missed opportunity.
His tweet about it was at 7:30am. Not sure how much quicker off the mark he could be tbh.
 
His tweet about it was at 7:30am. Not sure how much quicker off the mark he could be tbh.

Tbh, the missed opportunity was in reference to the beheadings. I might be wrong but didn't see him speak out about them.

Last night, he didn't mention the Vienna attacks either, even though the PM and Home Sec had already expressed their solidarity with Vienna so I thought he was just going to ignore it again but in hindsight, I think he might have just been getting ready for bed
 
Tbh, the missed opportunity was in reference to the beheadings. I might be wrong but didn't see him speak out about them.

Last night, he didn't mention the Vienna attacks either, even though the PM and Home Sec had already expressed their solidarity with Vienna so I thought he was just going to ignore it again but in hindsight, I think he might have just been getting ready for bed

Going to bed? What a ****
 
I thought you were against virtue signalling?

I dont think I've ever said I'm generally for or against virtue signalling: it depends on what the virtue signalling entails. I'd support him condemning Islamic extremism but if he said, 'right well in response to the Paris attacks I'm going to bomb Tunisia' then I wouldn't support it.
 
I dont think I've ever said I'm generally for or against virtue signalling: it depends on what the virtue signalling entails. I'd support him condemning Islamic extremism but if he said, 'right well in response to the Paris attacks I'm going to bomb Tunisia' then I wouldn't support it.

Revenge bombing isn’t exactly virtue signaling
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top