The Labour Party

mcfc1632 said:
@Damocles Not being paying close attention but my summary:

Step 1 (some years ago) - the 'much more left-leaning' cadre, including Momentum seize control over the mechanisms to determine policy and leadership selection

Step 2 - Marginalise/get shot of/remove from influence all those wet/centrists that are left over from the Blair era - and hope the voting public don't notice - if they do they can fuck off too

Step 3 (where we are / leading up to the here and now) - drag the party much further Left and cement the position through policies decided at Conference. Now we are rid of the Centrists - continue the progress by finding the next group to be offended by and purge for not being 'left enough'.

Step 4 - (September 2019) - realisation dawns that Oh fuck!!!!! - we are not going to win the upcoming election following which out stooge will likely resign/retire - and just look at the possible replacement candidates FFS?

Watson would be a disaster - that Starmer fella is just another wet moderate and Thornberry is - well just Thornberry. We need the next leader to be someone from our ranks and we need to take action to ensure that we control the selection of Jeremy's replacement!!

We need to secure that control now - fuck whether its the start of the Conference and could play out really badly in the media - our need for control over who is the next leader is much more important!!

Ok - Firstly, let's ensure that Watson cannot fall into the job by default, then lets ensure that we can get 'true believers' put forwards as candidates and then we can ensure their selection. Angela, or Rebecca would probably do - so let's get one of them selected to be 'joint Deputy Leader'...……………….
Click to expand...

Step 1 Momentum has 40,000 members, it is a campaign group and it has not seized control of the party. The membership is 560,000 so it simply does not have the numbers to control the party.

Step 2 If the MPs don't reflect the wishes of the members then why are they Labour MPs in the first place. The Labour Party is a democratic party and they are being anti-democratic and in my mind they should be removed if they do not reflect the membership.

Step3 That is democracy, if the membership didn't want Socialism they would not have voted for it.

Step 4 Who knows what the election will bring, Corbyn for all his faults is a brilliant campaigner and if the policies prove popular then the Party wins and we have a proper Socialist government, if we don't then we find policies that will win.

I think you class the likes of myself really unfairly here, its not my party, its our party and I will accept the democratic outcome of the membership. I don't see myself as a "true believer" I see myself as a Socialist who wants a Socialist party to vote for and represent my views. What is wrong with that?
 
mcfc1632 said:
Not wrong IMO - See fumble's post that I have just quoted

That is the face of the move to the hard-left and the contempt for those 'not worthy'. It proves the truth of what I say IMO
Click to expand...


So fumbles post proves your point, which is wrong btw.

I can agree with @Rascal summerisation, I too am a left wing socialist member of the party that backed the new labour project and gave progress their chance at doing it their way, even though I dissagreed with some of their ideals, as party came first and unity.
Since progress has been maginalised, they and their support within the party have done nothing but destabalise and rock the boat rather than support the wishes of the membership.

And this "hard left" take over is nowt of the sort, what you are seeing now is a return to a more democratised membership and policy that would be seen as just left of centre in most other democracies.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Have you heard of this thing called genetics?

It's a fascinating new concept, but incredibly, if someone is very intelligent and happens through their intelligence, to do well for themselves and make a lot of money, there seems to be a good chsnce that their kids will have higher than average intelligence as well.

The inconvenient truth mate.
Click to expand...


Fuck me Francis Galton lives on.

Now I know you are on a wind up.

Next you will be advocating full eugenics as a government policy to remove the waif and strays
 
mcfc1632 said:
Not wrong IMO - See fumble's post that I have just quoted

That is the face of the move to the hard-left and the contempt for those 'not worthy'. It proves the truth of what I say IMO
Click to expand...

FUMBs aint "hard left" but it is easy to put people into boxes because the overton window has been dragged so far rightwards..

I agree with him about Watson, he has done nothing more than continually snipe at the leadership and by association, the members. New Labour is dead, I don't think New Labours dalliance with neo-liberalism did the party any favours at all and the facts show how many voters Blair lost the party. I still supported him though as he was the democratically elected leader of the party. And he is right as well if you don't believe in Socialism, why would you be in the Labour party? I differ in that I welcome all views as I accept that the soft left has things to offer, but until the membership decides differently then we are where we are.

I would welcome the Labour Party being further to the left than it is, I am not alone in that either, but I am happy with the current position as it reflects my views far more closely than it has since any time I have had the chance to vote.

Am I a "purist"? no, I am a Socialist.
 
Rascal said:
Step 1 Momentum has 40,000 members, it is a campaign group and it has not seized control of the party. The membership is 560,000 so it simply does not have the numbers to control the party.

Step 2 If the MPs don't reflect the wishes of the members then why are they Labour MPs in the first place. The Labour Party is a democratic party and they are being anti-democratic and in my mind they should be removed if they do not reflect the membership.

Step3 That is democracy, if the membership didn't want Socialism they would not have voted for it.

Step 4 Who knows what the election will bring, Corbyn for all his faults is a brilliant campaigner and if the policies prove popular then the Party wins and we have a proper Socialist government, if we don't then we find policies that will win.

I think you class the likes of myself really unfairly here, its not my party, its our party and I will accept the democratic outcome of the membership. I don't see myself as a "true believer" I see myself as a Socialist who wants a Socialist party to vote for and represent my views. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Step 1 - I said including Momentum - not just them

Step 2 - The recent changes to membership allowed the seizing of control and now that bed is made Labour will have to lay in it IMO - that does not change the validity of what I am highlighting. Interesting to read that point though after all the anti-Tory comments about the Tory membership and their selection of Johnson.

You say:

"I think you class the likes of myself really unfairly here,...."

I do not mean to class you as anything - FWIW, I regard you as someone that attempts genuine debate - whereas others act in the contemptuous manner I have highlighted

@Damocles asked a question - I just gave my view of the events - that is all
 
urban genie said:
And this "hard left" take over is nowt of the sort, what you are seeing now is a return to a more democratised membership and policy that would be seen as just left of centre in most other democracies.
Click to expand...
@urban genie and @Rascal

You present your positions and that is absolutely fine by me more power to you is my opinion - my comments are not aimed at you as individuals.

I have set out my views and, as someone that was born and bred as a Labour voter - and you do not need to ask why - I make comments about my positions.

Others, as this move to the hard-left are just gratuitously contemptuous of people like me and others on here who have been/would wish to continue to be Labour voters - but are not comfortable with some of the policies that failed in the 70's being planned for the UK of 50 years later.

The point I am making is that @Damocles mentioned Labour and 'broad church' in the same sentence - but that is not how it feels from the viewpoint of someone that is on the spectrum that would/should fall within that broad church.

The outcome I suspect will be that there will be a lot of disappointment because the numbers of people like me and others on here number millions across the UK and likely will be the reason that Labour do not form the next government.
 
mcfc1632 said:
@urban genie and @Rascal

You present your positions and that is absolutely fine by me more power to you is my opinion - my comments are not aimed at you as individuals.

I have set out my views and, as someone that was born and bred as a Labour voter - and you do not need to ask why - I make comments about my positions.

Others, as this move to the hard-left are just gratuitously contemptuous of people like me and others on here who have been/would wish to continue to be Labour voters - but are not comfortable with some of the policies that failed in the 70's being planned for the UK of 50 years later.

The point I am making is that @Damocles mentioned Labour and 'broad church' in the same sentence - but that is not how it feels from the viewpoint of someone that is on the spectrum that would/should fall within that broad church.

The outcome I suspect will be that there will be a lot of disappointment because the numbers of people like me and others on here number millions across the UK and likely will be the reason that Labour do not form the next government.
Click to expand...

Which is fair comment, but my point and I think Genie's is too, is that both of us supported Blair when the right of the party held sway and that support has not been reciprocated. I feel let down by that as I was good enough for them then, but now I am categorised (not by you) as being hard left, Marxist, extremist etc etc, when all I am really is old school Labour that is more Bevinite than Bennite

As for the 70s, it is really difficult to translate todays world back to then as its totally different and the 70s had some events that changed the world. Labour got the blame for a lot that went wrong in the 70s, unfairly sometimes too. The problems of the 70s were as much Heath's fault than Labours, his incomes policy was a disaster in a time of the economic turbulence brought about by the OPEC crisis, which indirectly fuelled inflation and led to an upsurge in Union influence.. Of course Labour got things wrong too, every government ever has got things wrong. Somehow for instance the 3 day week is now associated with the Labour party when it actually happened under Heath, who disingenuously turned the first election of 1974 into who ran the country, the government or the miners. The miners had been promised a pay rise under the Wilberforce enquiry and it was not met, so went on strike. I believe it is every working mans right to withdraw his labour as it is the only thing he has to sell.

The 70S also saw the rising influence of the right wing think tanks with their Friedman and Hayek inspired ideas of neo-liberalism, readily welcomed by Thatcher. This was a response to the post WW2 social consensus and the rise of the paternalistic welfarism of social democracy.
 
mcfc1632 said:
@urban genie and @Rascal

You present your positions and that is absolutely fine by me more power to you is my opinion - my comments are not aimed at you as individuals.

I have set out my views and, as someone that was born and bred as a Labour voter - and you do not need to ask why - I make comments about my positions.

Others, as this move to the hard-left are just gratuitously contemptuous of people like me and others on here who have been/would wish to continue to be Labour voters - but are not comfortable with some of the policies that failed in the 70's being planned for the UK of 50 years later.

The point I am making is that @Damocles mentioned Labour and 'broad church' in the same sentence - but that is not how it feels from the viewpoint of someone that is on the spectrum that would/should fall within that broad church.

The outcome I suspect will be that there will be a lot of disappointment because the numbers of people like me and others on here number millions across the UK and likely will be the reason that Labour do not form the next government.
Click to expand...

The broad church tag line was always about the several levels of ideas bouncing around Labour as a movement and still does exist.
The Fabians
LAWS
JLM
progress
Etc

All these groups are socialist or social democratic amongst others and all have slightly differing views over the decades.

However the reason why the PLP mainly are pissing off the likes of me is throughout Kinnock who was ruthless with any way but his vision (and I do 't mean just millitant many grpups were treated like shite) to Smith, Blair, Brown the left winh of the party have backed, thouth not always agreed with the party.

Yet now the members have said we want to try it this way those elements that are on the most recent dominant wing have instead thrown a wobbly and cast us all as extreme marxists and rather than work together look to undermine and disrupt.

John woodcock - ex labour MP and sex pest is a great example.
As soon as jeremy won the leadership he saw his arse and started commenting against him and undermining party unity, come 2017 election he couldn't get people out to campaign for him because of his antics, but as ever because we have always backed the party members of lancashire, merseyside and Manchetsr CLPs went up to barrow and were the door steppers, the activists, campaigning to get labour in, in fact mommentum sent up young activists.

Days after the election, not that anyone asked for one, but no thank you from this dick just more anti-leadership rhetoric.

We have always been abroad church and the left has always supported the direction of the paty, sometimes against our own judgement, it is just a shame the right wing of the party cannot show such solidarity.

As for the 70s, I was a child of the 80s so grew up with our countrys infrastucture beinf sold.off or shut down, massive gulfs in equality, homelesness everywhere, riots, police used like a government force, football fans treated like second class citizens, etc.
 
So the Labour Party have voted to seize private land and property , then redistribute it.
YCNMIU.
Are we living in Great Britain or communist China ?
 
urban genie said:
We have always been abroad church and the left has always supported the direction of the paty, sometimes against our own judgement, it is just a shame the right wing of the party cannot show such solidarity.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Jezzer on the left when he consistently voted against his own party in government? How many times was it? I heard it was t'other side o' five hundred?
 
urban genie said:
The broad church tag line was always about the several levels of ideas bouncing around Labour as a movement and still does exist.
The Fabians
LAWS
JLM
progress
Etc

All these groups are socialist or social democratic amongst others and all have slightly differing views over the decades.

However the reason why the PLP mainly are pissing off the likes of me is throughout Kinnock who was ruthless with any way but his vision (and I do 't mean just millitant many grpups were treated like shite) to Smith, Blair, Brown the left winh of the party have backed, thouth not always agreed with the party.

Yet now the members have said we want to try it this way those elements that are on the most recent dominant wing have instead thrown a wobbly and cast us all as extreme marxists and rather than work together look to undermine and disrupt.

John woodcock - ex labour MP and sex pest is a great example.
As soon as jeremy won the leadership he saw his arse and started commenting against him and undermining party unity, come 2017 election he couldn't get people out to campaign for him because of his antics, but as ever because we have always backed the party members of lancashire, merseyside and Manchetsr CLPs went up to barrow and were the door steppers, the activists, campaigning to get labour in, in fact mommentum sent up young activists.

Days after the election, not that anyone asked for one, but no thank you from this dick just more anti-leadership rhetoric.

We have always been abroad church and the left has always supported the direction of the paty, sometimes against our own judgement, it is just a shame the right wing of the party cannot show such solidarity.

As for the 70s, I was a child of the 80s so grew up with our countrys infrastucture beinf sold.off or shut down, massive gulfs in equality, homelesness everywhere, riots, police used like a government force, football fans treated like second class citizens, etc.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t far out when I said you were under 35 :-)
 
bluethrunthru said:
why shouldn't they? The idea is not to close fee paying schools just to level the playing field with the rest of the country - if that means the fee is the "going rate" what is wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Apparently they’ve voted to not only end charitable status etc but also to redistribute their assets. Although McDonnell has told them that would be illegal and he will not do it,
 
Rascal said:
Which is fair comment, but my point and I think Genie's is too, is that both of us supported Blair when the right of the party held sway and that support has not been reciprocated. I feel let down by that as I was good enough for them then, but now I am categorised (not by you) as being hard left, Marxist, extremist etc etc, when all I am really is old school Labour that is more Bevinite than Bennite

As for the 70s, it is really difficult to translate todays world back to then as its totally different and the 70s had some events that changed the world. Labour got the blame for a lot that went wrong in the 70s, unfairly sometimes too. The problems of the 70s were as much Heath's fault than Labours, his incomes policy was a disaster in a time of the economic turbulence brought about by the OPEC crisis, which indirectly fuelled inflation and led to an upsurge in Union influence.. Of course Labour got things wrong too, every government ever has got things wrong. Somehow for instance the 3 day week is now associated with the Labour party when it actually happened under Heath, who disingenuously turned the first election of 1974 into who ran the country, the government or the miners. The miners had been promised a pay rise under the Wilberforce enquiry and it was not met, so went on strike. I believe it is every working mans right to withdraw his labour as it is the only thing he has to sell.

The 70S also saw the rising influence of the right wing think tanks with their Friedman and Hayek inspired ideas of neo-liberalism, readily welcomed by Thatcher. This was a response to the post WW2 social consensus and the rise of the paternalistic welfarism of social democracy.
Click to expand...


"...….but my point and I think Genie's is too, is that both of us supported Blair when the right of the party held sway and that support has not been reciprocated."

Excellent points and my comments are not meant as detriment to you - respect to you both

I do not feel that this affects my points at all though
 
bluethrunthru said:
Jesus wept .................you actually do believe that someone is more intelligent by means of having money and wealth? Fuck me you have outed yourself tonight mate.
Click to expand...

No, you've outed yourself as either not reading properly or perhaps not thinking things through.

Instead of your stupid line above, what I actually said was,

"if someone is very intelligent and happens through their intelligence, to do well for themselves and make a lot of money, there seems to be a good chance that their kids will have higher than average intelligence as well."
  1. There is an undeniable correlation between intelligent parents and intelligent children. Partly genetic, partly down to their environment, their peers and how much time and effort the parents invest in their kids, it matters not. The correlation is undeniable.
  2. There is also an undeniable correlation between levels of intelligence and levels of income.
  3. There is also therefore a correlation between levels of income of parents and levels of intelligence of their kids.
I'm assuming you do know what correlation means? It does not mean every parent and every child. It means on balance, more likely etc.

There might be all sorts of reasons why rich kids get the top jobs other than how intelligent they are per se. But that is not the point, and whether you accept the above or not is really down to whether or not you accept reality.
 
Last edited:
cibaman said:
Apparently they’ve voted to not only end charitable status etc but also to redistribute their assets. Although McDonnell has told them that would be illegal and he will not do it,
Click to expand...

Refreshing to see a senior politician respecting the rule of law. The Mail was arguing for PM Johnson to ignore the rule of law so let’s hope that ‘Marxist Revolutionary’ McDonnell doesn’t read that piece as it may give him ideas.
 
Rascal said:
my point and I think Genie's is too, is that both of us supported Blair when the right of the party held sway and that support has not been reciprocated.
Click to expand...

What exactly is not being reciprocated? What is it you did when Blair was leader which you believe the right of the Labour party are not doing in return?
 
Tense is the watchword from the Brighton Conference according to Skynews. Widespread whisperings in the bars about what a post Jezzer party should look like and significant unease expressed by many MPs about McDonnell's claim he would have rescued Thomas Cook. Anyway free adult social care for all is today's commitment. Very generous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top