Keir Starmer

[urban genie]

That wasn't the question I asked.

But it does conform to what everyone already knows about the anti-Starmer lot - you'd rather complain loudly while allowing the Tories to go full steam ahead into destroying the country than settle for a Labour party that's not absolutely perfect.

I live in a 20000+ labour majority area, I can afford to vote with my beliefs, in a marginal my priority would have to be to oust the tories

 

[Rascal]

Who is closer to your beliefs, Kier Starmer's Labour, or Rishi Sunak/Boris Jonhson's Conservatives?

That is a difficult question as neither have any real ideological belief, they are both policy wastelands.

 

[Rascal]

That wasn't the question I asked.

But it does conform to what everyone already knows about the anti-Starmer lot - you'd rather complain loudly while allowing the Tories to go full steam ahead into destroying the country than settle for a Labour party that's not absolutely perfect.

The Labour centrists did exactly the same and allowed a Johnson government in. Its the centrists that are the extremists, they have destroyed party unity in exchange for power.

Have you seen the Labour Files?

 

[domalino]

The Labour centrists did exactly the same and allowed a Johnson government in. Its the centrists that are the extremists, they have destroyed party unity in exchange for power.

Have you seen the Labour Files?

I must have missed the Labour centrists losing to Johnson. I was living in the reality where Jeremy Corbyn lost by the biggest margin in decades.

Its the centrists that are the extremists

Not the far-centre!!!

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The Labour centrists did exactly the same and allowed a Johnson government in. Its the centrists that are the extremists, they have destroyed party unity in exchange for power.

Have you seen the Labour Files?

Evidently he hasn't.

 

[Rascal]

I must have missed the Labour centrists losing to Johnson. I was living in the reality where Jeremy Corbyn lost by the biggest margin in decades.





Not the far-centre!!!

As Mazz says. The Labour Files.

The Centrists are the dangerous extremists that paved the way for a Johnson victory. They are the ones who would have rather had a Tory Government under Johnson than a Labour Government under Corbyn, the despicable cunts.

 

[Don Karleone]

That wasn't the question I asked.

But it does conform to what everyone already knows about the anti-Starmer lot - you'd rather complain loudly while allowing the Tories to go full steam ahead into destroying the country than settle for a Labour party that's not absolutely perfect.

I assume you were this vocal for the last Labour leader?

 

[domalino]

I assume you were this vocal for the last Labour leader?

Yes.

 

[Don Karleone]

Yes.

On here?

 

[Vic]

You’re doing well if you can spot the difference.

Beyond belief.

 

[metalblue]

Beyond belief.

Isn’t it just

 

[Didsbury Dave]

That wasn't the question I asked.

But it does conform to what everyone already knows about the anti-Starmer lot - you'd rather complain loudly while allowing the Tories to go full steam ahead into destroying the country than settle for a Labour party that's not absolutely perfect.

They’ve already gone full steam ahead and they’ve already destroyed the country because these people got silly about an unelectable hard left candidate. Again.

 

[Don Karleone]

They’ve already gone full steam ahead and they’ve already destroyed the country because these people got silly about an unelectable hard left candidate. Again.

Nothing to do with the people currently in power within the Labour party sabotaging that "hard left candidate"?

Don't worry, I already know that those who support Starmer won't take any responsibility.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Were the left wing not the original faction of labour essentially the name the labour party is a left wing idea, maybe people like starmer should have joined the lib dems from the start.

Always seems laughable people call the left and socialism not what the labour movement is about, that is exactly what it is.

Labour means the effort put into work. It doesn’t mean socialism.

Working class people are in a very different position to what they were in the 1800s and they are even in a very different position to what they were in the 1970s.

Working class people are not all poor and struggling nor do they all need or want socialism. Many are doing very well for themselves. Many are ambitious and talented and earn a lot of money or want to eventually earn a lot of money and know how they’re going to get there.

Socialism was arguably what was needed for the poor and struggling working class in 1800s Britain, but is it in the 2020s?

If someone has vision and ambition who puts the effort into their work to make themselves rich, they are part of a successful Labour movement in a capitalist world. Would socialism allow a mechanic to start up his own business to eventually grow into having numerous garages under his name dotted around and earn enough from them to have a couple of homes, one nearer his place of work and one near the coast, both with more bedrooms and land than he really needs but has the ambition to want knowing it’s nice to have? Would socialism allow a builder to start buying up homes and doing them up to sell for a profit, which starts a chain where maybe he eventually becomes a property developer earning millions?

There are many of these people out there who have this ambition and talent. There are many who pay good wages to their employees as well in order to have a happy and hard working workforce to enhance their businesses further. This is Labour at its best. Working people doing well for themselves and providing good wages in order for more working people to do well for themselves.

Enterprise; the legal entity of possessing the right to conduct business on your own. The Labour movement can be as enterprising as it can socialist.

Even Keir Hardie once said that the working class are not necessarily socialist.

 

[urban genie]

Labour means the effort put into work. It doesn’t mean socialism.

Working class people are in a very different position to what they were in the 1800s and they are even in a very different position to what they were in the 1970s.

Working class people are not all poor and struggling nor do they all need or want socialism. Many are doing very well for themselves. Many are ambitious and talented and earn a lot of money or want to eventually earn a lot of money and know how they’re going to get there.

Socialism was arguably what was needed for the poor and struggling working class in 1800s Britain, but is it in the 2020s?

If someone has vision and ambition who puts the effort into their work to make themselves rich, they are part of a successful Labour movement in a capitalist world. Would socialism allow a mechanic to start up his own business to eventually grow into having numerous garages under his name dotted around and earn enough from them to have a couple of homes, one nearer his place of work and one near the coast, both with more bedrooms and land than he really needs but has the ambition to want knowing it’s nice to have? Would socialism allow a builder to start buying up homes and doing them up to sell for a profit, which starts a chain where maybe he eventually becomes a property developer earning millions?

There are many of these people out there who have this ambition and talent. There are many who pay good wages to their employees as well in order to have a happy and hard working workforce to enhance their businesses further. This is Labour at its best. Working people doing well for themselves and providing good wages in order for more working people to do well for themselves.

Enterprise; the legal entity of possessing the right to conduct business on your own. The Labour movement can be as enterprising as it can socialist.

Even Keir Hardie once said that the working class are not necessarily socialist.

My point was about the tagging of the left as a faction which is incorrect historically as the labour movement started in the UK as early as the late 1700s and worlers forming commitiees and co-operatives to protest the guild system, alingside the writting of Thomas Paine and his works influenced by the french revolution which is considered the birth of much of modern sociism.
Thoughout the 19th century and industrial revolution these small organised workers groups became more widespread and organised eventually leading to trade unions, these trade unions along with socialist partys decide to form a political party, as was happening increasingly across europe and the americas (and some other areas of the world).

This party and movement was, in the UK branded as the labour movement/party.

So my original reply to the poster is correct it is wrong to call the left wing and socialist element of the labour party a faction, when in fact it is the original principals.


Whatever the make up of the labour party is now and whether those who want to support it are socialist or not, though you never had to be anyway just someone who believed in a more equal society and workers rights to a better life so to dismiss what the name means is something I disagree with, the term labour movement here and globaly is a left wing workers movement that opposes the capitalist or liberal ideologies.

At least Blair had the decency to call it new labour and specify it wasn't the old party anymore.

On a note about the party now, the modern day worker is a mix of many industries and so are not all ideologically the same I agree and a workers party needs to reflect that , but who does the party represent is my problem, it doesn't seem to represent anyone from what I have heard from what starmer comes out with, more seems to pander to what he sees as present news, he is reactive rather than pro-active, it really does seem like all he is an at least it isn't the tories option for most than a genuine party of choice

 

[Rascal]

They’ve already gone full steam ahead and they’ve already destroyed the country because these people got silly about an unelectable hard left candidate. Again.

Chinese whispers 1. The Mail says Didsbury Dave has a little dick, The Telegraph confirm that DD indeed does have a little dick. The BBC ask DD if he has a little dick. DD denies having a little dick, the Express conform his denial means he actually does have a little dick. The narrative is now little dick DD.

Chinese whispers 2. The Mail says Corbyn is unelectable, The Telegraph conform that Corbyn is indeed unelectable. The BBC ask Corbyn if he is unelectable, Corbyn denies he is unelectable, The express confirm his denial means he actually is unelectable. The narrative is now Corbyn is unelectable.

That is how people are convinced DD has a little dick and Corbyn is unelectable.


Now I have no idea if DD is actually hung like a horse, nor do I have no idea if Corbyn is actually electable, but the "facts" have been established and the gas lighting has worked a treat.

 

[Rascal]

Labour means the effort put into work. It doesn’t mean socialism.

Marx emphasised Labour as a commodity that was being used to extract surplus value in order to boost capitalist profit. It does not mean effort put into work in this sense. The Labour Party has always been about people. It was formed to give ordinary people a voice and has sought power in order to improve their lives. The fruits of this work have changed Britain for the better mostly, through the most progressive/Socialist governments in our country’s history.

Working class people are in a very different position to what they were in the 1800s and they are even in a very different position to what they were in the 1970s.

Yes and No, they are enfranchised, but are still what i consider the exploited class. The attacks on Trade Unions prove that working class solidarity is feared but they the working class are still exploited by unscrupolous capitalists

Working class people are not all poor and struggling nor do they all need or want socialism. Many are doing very well for themselves. Many are ambitious and talented and earn a lot of money or want to eventually earn a lot of money and know how they’re going to get there.

I do not get where you got the idea that Socialism means you cannot be ambitious and earn the worth of the fruit of your labour. Socialism is not Stalinism.

Socialism was arguably what was needed for the poor and struggling working class in 1800s Britain, but is it in the 2020s?

It is more relevant than ever before. We have huge inequalities in this country and Socialism can address that imbalance.

If someone has vision and ambition who puts the effort into their work to make themselves rich, they are part of a successful Labour movement in a capitalist world. Would socialism allow a mechanic to start up his own business to eventually grow into having numerous garages under his name dotted around and earn enough from them to have a couple of homes, one nearer his place of work and one near the coast, both with more bedrooms and land than he really needs but has the ambition to want knowing it’s nice to have? Would socialism allow a builder to start buying up homes and doing them up to sell for a profit, which starts a chain where maybe he eventually becomes a property developer earning millions?

Even Lenin was an advocate for small business. Socialism would ensure those with most contributed most to society in order to raise standards for all.

There are many of these people out there who have this ambition and talent. There are many who pay good wages to their employees as well in order to have a happy and hard working workforce to enhance their businesses further. This is Labour at its best. Working people doing well for themselves and providing good wages in order for more working people to do well for themselves.

I think Lenin would like you

Enterprise; the legal entity of possessing the right to conduct business on your own. The Labour movement can be as enterprising as it can socialist.

I got it wrong, Lenin would love you.

Even Keir Hardie once said that the working class are not necessarily socialist.

And Keir was right, In a democracy though the choice has to be available surely. At the moment that choice does not exist,

 

[hilts]

That wasn't the question I asked.

But it does conform to what everyone already knows about the anti-Starmer lot - you'd rather complain loudly while allowing the Tories to go full steam ahead into destroying the country than settle for a Labour party that's not absolutely perfect.

Every time some half wit comes out with this shit. But you must vote Labour not green as those nasty tories will get in. Pmsl.

 

[TinFoilHat]

More and more we lurch to the right.

Anyone that cares and wants a better life for all is labeled a socialist as a slur.

"We need a leader for the centre"

Translates as I'm ok and I'm sympathetic to others suffering. However if that means it's effects my lifestyle you can get fucked.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Every time some half wit comes out with this shit. But you must vote Labour not green as those nasty tories will get in. Pmsl.

Is it me or is it really hard to vote Labour because there are so many on here who hate the party?

It was naivety from me that thought anybody really cared so assumed the attacks were from the right. Never realised that Starmer could cause so much anger but now realise that nobody cares about Starmer, they will attack him him but will be happy if he gets the Tories out.