The Labour Party

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Quiet in here today.

 

[Don Karleone]

Check the reasons why.

 

[west didsblue]

Check the reasons why.

Unsurprisingly a quick Google search would suggest that her stated reason is an insignificant part of the overall reason.

 

[Postman Pep]

Unsurprisingly a quick Google search would suggest that her stated reason is an insignificant part of the overall reason.

Tried that can't see anything. Any chance of expanding on that?

 

[west didsblue]

Tried that can't see anything. Any chance of expanding on that?

Plenty of stories about her criticising Starmer. Here’s one.
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/star...-action-as-activists-back-green-new-deal/?amp
Seems her support is for the Corbynite part of the party.
Rightly or wrongly Starmer is marginalising that faction. Blaming on a Twitter like is disingenuous imo.

 

[Postman Pep]

Plenty of stories about her criticising Starmer. Here’s one.
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/star...-action-as-activists-back-green-new-deal/?amp
Seems her support is for the Corbynite part of the party.
Rightly or wrongly Starmer is marginalising that faction. Blaming on a Twitter like is disingenuous imo.

So no whiff of scandal or problematic behaviour beyond mere factionalism. I doubt she is under any illusions that it was anything but that. So who is being disingenuous here, her for highlighting the pretext she was given or the Labour Party for going to ridiculous lengths to justify blocking 'problematic ' candidates?

 

[west didsblue]

So no whiff of scandal or problematic behaviour beyond mere factionalism. I doubt she is under any illusions that it was anything but that. So who is being disingenuous here, her for highlighting the pretext she was given or the Labour Party for going to ridiculous lengths to justify blocking 'problematic ' candidates?

Can’t really argue with that. It's clearly a calculation by Starmer that marginalising Corbynites will gain more votes than it loses even if it goes against normal processes.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

So no whiff of scandal or problematic behaviour beyond mere factionalism. I doubt she is under any illusions that it was anything but that. So who is being disingenuous here, her for highlighting the pretext she was given or the Labour Party for going to ridiculous lengths to justify blocking 'problematic ' candidates?

If she’s against the main point of Labour getting the vote, then she’s against change.

Very simply, the Unions no longer have the huge sway that they had, they are no longer relevant in this current society.

Things need to change. When people see Sunak as the best alternative then you know things are really wrong. An absolute **** in many books where even his own constituents worry about him.

It will be your choice. Vote for or vote against, you may have that final vote. However, beware of what you vote for, Bluemoon will always have a say ;-)

 

[Postman Pep]

Can’t really argue with that. It's clearly a calculation by Starmer that marginalising Corbynites will gain more votes than it loses even if it goes against normal processes.

So normal processes don't matter to our future PM, as long as you get the right result? How reassuring ;)

 

[Postman Pep]

If she’s against the main point of Labour getting the vote, then she’s against change.

Very simply, the Unions no longer have the huge sway that they had, they are no longer relevant in this current society.

Things need to change. When people see Sunak as the best alternative then you know things are really wrong. An absolute **** in many books where even his own constituents worry about him.

It will be your choice. Vote for or vote against, you may have that final vote. However, beware of what you vote for, Bluemoon will always have a say ;-)

The unions are no longer relevant ........ what a line