Jump to content

All things Labour Party


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

 

Not sure how an observation about medical/research/investment priorities in the UK is "self loathing".

I think it's fair to say if men had periods, or went through the menopause the national approach to those things would be quite different.

I think it is fair to say menopause has been a bit of a taboo. The problem I have with the tweet is in the victimising. That seems to be the angle they want to play out on many things and in my opinion is why they seem to be missing the ‘connecting with ordinary voter’. 
Maybe knocking the cocks off a few statues might help? They did well at the Brit awards though and WSL is seemingly creeping into every football podcast as pretence must be kept up that we are all equally interested. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I was referring mostly to the bit about women being a burden if they are not being pretty or giving birth.

Men may not have periods but we are three times more likely to commit suicide so clearly something about our make is causing hugely increased levels of mental health problems.

It shouldn’t be about competing but agree male mental health is impacted by the not knowing where to belong, role in society and campaigns sloganing ‘are you ok?  ‘it’s good to talk’ type lines are well intended but not overly effective on addressing wider issues. Women moaning about men having all the privilege doesn’t help either. 

Edited by whelk
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

No idea what point you’re making, I’ve never suggested otherwise. Men and women both have their problems and both have some resources available to assist them. The difference is, I’m not claiming the world is biased against men because we haven’t found a cure for baldness or erectile dysfunction yet. As FTF pointed out, women have HRT and that didn’t just fall down from a tree. An awful lot of research goes into that and if there was a ‘cure’ for menopause somebody would be making tens of billions from the 3.5 billion customers worldwide. Even if big pharma don’t care one iota about women’s health, greed alone would have pushed them along.

Imagine if a man developed a pill that stopped the menopause - there would be uproar from certain sections that a 'man' is messing with female biology and denying women the liberation of the menopause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

The difference is, I’m not claiming the world is biased against men because we haven’t found a cure for baldness or erectile dysfunction yet

Well you can't claim the world is biased against men, because it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

Keir isn't cutting through is he. Research has shown that the personality of the leader is key. Starmer hasn't got it, Bunham has, I think.

Labour will lurch for Dawn Butler or someone else equally stupid/pointless

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Their voting system doesn't help that's for sure.

That’s right.

Galloway is going to cost them Batley and Spen, and too many of the members will take that as a signal to move back towards Corbynism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/05/2021 at 07:29, Fan The Flames said:

The world is biased against women but it is a real stretch to say that nothing is done for women and they are just seen as a burden.

I'll remind you of that the next time there's a war and the draft comes into play. Or a cursory look at deaths at work, or breast cancer funding compared to testicular or decisions going against men in parental courts. There's examples of so called bias for both genders it's nowhere near as simple as claiming the world is "biased against women."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s right.

Galloway is going to cost them Batley and Spen, and too many of the members will take that as a signal to move back towards Corbynism. 

Actually that's left. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why Labour thought allowing Bercow to join would be a good idea. Regardless of whether you agree with his political opinions, does everyone else find him as repugnant as I do? I loathe the way he talks all puffed up with his own self importance and a grandiose sense of superiority. You'd think he had an ounce of self awareness of how he comes across to the average man on the street. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure why Labour thought allowing Bercow to join would be a good idea. Regardless of whether you agree with his political opinions, does everyone else find him as repugnant as I do? I loathe the way he talks all puffed up with his own self importance and a grandiose sense of superiority. You'd think he had an ounce of self awareness of how he comes across to the average man on the street. 

From what I gather he's disliked by the knuckle dragger brexit crowd.  I expect Labour have realised they're not going to win that lot back and need to build their votes around the liberally minded - be that Blairites, Boris-hating-Tories or Corbynites who appreciate that a "New Labour" is better than this cult-of-Boris government.  I guess Bercow is popular with the anti-Brexit/Boris crowd that Starmer is trying to appeal to.

One thing's for sure, Labour need more sharp personalities and Bercow is that, even if you don't like him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 20/06/2021 at 21:27, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s right.

Galloway is going to cost them Batley and Spen, and too many of the members will take that as a signal to move back towards Corbynism. 

If anyone causes it, it will be Starmer that costs Labour Batley & Spen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Have you not met the general public?

🙂

Yeah, can't believe they let the less intelligent folk vote. There should be some kind of IQ test screening or sumfink... 

Edited by trousers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it nearly cost them B&S, having Galloway fighting them is great for labour in the long term.  Very few people have time for Galloway, even on the far left and this will help make Starmer's Labour look more "normal".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The Hancock affair biting Boris in the arse. 

Or an astute ploy to keep Starmer in place...? ;)

Edited by trousers
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, trousers said:

Or an astute ploy to keep Starmer in place...? ;)

I’d imagine the more sensible members of the labour establishment would want Starmer to lead the party into the next election, with Burnham  standing in a safe seat. 
 

Any leadership election before then would only benefit the Tories. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’d imagine the more sensible members of the labour establishment would want Starmer to lead the party into the next election, with Burnham  standing in a safe seat. 
 

Any leadership election before then would only benefit the Tories. 

Agreed.  Starmer is the Neil Kinnock, bring the party back from Corbynism and make them competitive again, albeit 2024 will come too soon.  Then once that's happened bring in the next great hope and beat the Tories in 2029 - which you'd expect by then should be possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’d imagine the more sensible members of the labour establishment would want Starmer to lead the party into the next election

What's the % split between the "more sensible members" and the less sensible ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Whilst it nearly cost them B&S, having Galloway fighting them is great for labour in the long term.  Very few people have time for Galloway, even on the far left and this will help make Starmer's Labour look more "normal".  

As expected he split the Labour vote and once again Labour infighting nearly cost them a seat. It is about time they all realised that they need to pull together to get this incompetent bunch out. You can’t change anything from the outside. People like Galloway are doing a lot of Johnson’s work for him. Time for the different factions within the Labour Party to put their differences to one side and to focus on the long game of getting elected. Time also to work with the opposition parties to work together in every seat to get this lot out. This country needs change not more of the same old self interest from those looking to feather the nests of themselves and their mates. A country’s biggest asset is its people. Time to put the people first.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, trousers said:

What's the % split between the "more sensible members" and the less sensible ones?

I wrote “more sensible members  of the Labour establishment “, not “labour members”.

Labour members  is about 70%/30% loons, hence Corbyns “victory”.

The people who work for the party, the elected MP’s, the officials, the lords, less so. There was a perfectly good mechanism for stopping the loons, keep them off the ballot. However, fuckwits like Beckett decided to “lend” their vote to Corbyn to ensure the hard left was represented in the subsequent debate. The biggest act of political self sabotage ever committed in living memory.
 

There’s a reason why a Jacob Rees Mogg or a Nadine Dorries don’t become party leader despite their popularity with members, they don’t get anywhere near the ballot. If Starmer can ensure that his successor is a choice between Burnham, D Milliband, Raynor, etc, rather than a Burgon, Wrong Dailey or Dawn Butler he’d have done a great service to the party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Agreed.  Starmer is the Neil Kinnock, bring the party back from Corbynism and make them competitive again, albeit 2024 will come too soon.  Then once that's happened bring in the next great hope and beat the Tories in 2029 - which you'd expect by then should be possible.

It's difficult to see Starmer winning an election from here, but he might steady the decline as the memories of that cretin continues to fade.

Hopefully somewhere there is a talented, inspiring leader who could be a Labour Prime Minister in my lifetime.

This Kim Leadbetter is bright, Northern, comes across well, is telegenic, has an interesting back story - is a "community organiser" like Obama was mocked for. Pie in the sky but who knows, maybe its her for five years time. I don't think its Andy Burnham particularly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

As expected he split the Labour vote and once again Labour infighting nearly cost them a seat. It is about time they all realised that they need to pull together to get this incompetent bunch out. You can’t change anything from the outside. People like Galloway are doing a lot of Johnson’s work for him. Time for the different factions within the Labour Party to put their differences to one side and to focus on the long game of getting elected. Time also to work with the opposition parties to work together in every seat to get this lot out. This country needs change not more of the same old self interest from those looking to feather the nests of themselves and their mates. A country’s biggest asset is its people. Time to put the people first.

I've voted both tory and labour in the past, though labour won't get my vote at the moment, I have no idea what labour are about these days, all I see is starmer kneeling like a little subservient to blm, the incompetent racist Dianne Abbott on the front bench (is she even there anymore who knows), there doesn't seem to be any policies, and all they seem to care about is identity politics.  I don't see anything about labour which would help the working man.

As much as you hate all things tory, most likely a bigoted view for them being posh who knows, peoples lives, not withstanding the lockdowns are good, people can pay their mortgages, people can feed their kids, people have disposable income, the vaccines have been rolled out brilliantly, people were paid not to work with the furlough scheme, the brexit deal was done (irrelevant what you think about it).  On the whole peoples lives are good.  We're a diverse population who get along, despite blm and the labour party trying to sow division.

As for the screaming about poverty, mostly bollix as far as I'm concerned, better money management would help in most cases and I talk as a child of the 70's who's mother was abandoned by her husband with 3 baby boys, she brought us up alone in the 70s with the stigma of being a single parent, the benefits would have been minimal but never once did we not have food on the table, our clothes were from oxfam but we didn't care, though I never saw my mum go for a night out, that's what being a responsible parent is about.

If you want to look at incompetent go back to the 70's and the strikes, I remember the electric going off most nights, schools finishing early, riots on the streets, then later on people were getting their houses repossessed.

As for Hancock, do I really care about some bloke pushing it in to someone he works with, not really, do I care that he should have been socially distancing, not really, they were working in the same room together.

Labour need to start telling us how they'll make our lives better and stop focusing on hating the tories.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Agreed.  Starmer is the Neil Kinnock, bring the party back from Corbynism and make them competitive again, albeit 2024 will come too soon.  Then once that's happened bring in the next great hope and beat the Tories in 2029 - which you'd expect by then should be possible.

Do we need a John Smith in between? Not sure to many will volunteer for that one the way it ended.....

 

 

Okay here is what the Labour Party needs to do say "We fight for the economically marginalized and the socially marginalized"

That's what they are meant to do, that's why they exist, often those two groups overlap. I never voted for them as a Liberal but if they do not have that simple message they will never get anywhere.

Edited by Mystic Force
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

As expected he split the Labour vote and once again Labour infighting nearly cost them a seat. It is about time they all realised that they need to pull together to get this incompetent bunch out. You can’t change anything from the outside. People like Galloway are doing a lot of Johnson’s work for him. Time for the different factions within the Labour Party to put their differences to one side and to focus on the long game of getting elected. Time also to work with the opposition parties to work together in every seat to get this lot out. This country needs change not more of the same old self interest from those looking to feather the nests of themselves and their mates. A country’s biggest asset is its people. Time to put the people first.

A rallying call for an incompetent bunch to be ousted by an even more incompetent bunch, nice one Soggy. 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CB Fry said:

It's difficult to see Starmer winning an election from here, but he might steady the decline as the memories of that cretin continues to fade.

Hopefully somewhere there is a talented, inspiring leader who could be a Labour Prime Minister in my lifetime.

This Kim Leadbetter is bright, Northern, comes across well, is telegenic, has an interesting back story - is a "community organiser" like Obama was mocked for. Pie in the sky but who knows, maybe its her for five years time. I don't think its Andy Burnham particularly.

I can see see Leadbetter, Burnham and Starmer as ministers but none of them as PM. I still have a hope David Miliband will make a comeback.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Time also to work with the opposition parties to work together in every seat to get this lot out. 

This is what needs to happen, nothing is ever going to change as long as there is three parties on the left (four if you live in Scotland or Wales) and just the Tories on the right. If another Blair comes along or if the Tories do exceptionally badly there is a chance but the odds are stacked against Labour since the rise of the SNP, plus Unions are getting less and less relevant so Labour will just go the same way.

The whole FPTP system is just dated, not sure how it will ever change but the Tories would have to seriously mess up to lose their grip on power.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aintforever said:

If another Blair comes along or if the Tories do exceptionally badly there is a chance but the odds are stacked against Labour since the rise of the SNP, 

This is absolutely the problem you lot have. As long as the leftie coalition has to include the SNP, it’ll frighten too many of the “soft” Tory voters who would vote for the Lib/Dems or a centralist Labour leader. Vote Miliband get Krankie probably won Call me Dave the 2015 election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is absolutely the problem you lot have. As long as the leftie coalition has to include the SNP, it’ll frighten too many of the “soft” Tory voters who would vote for the Lib/Dems or a centralist Labour leader. Vote Miliband get Krankie probably won Call me Dave the 2015 election. 

Pony

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is absolutely the problem you lot have. As long as the leftie coalition has to include the SNP, it’ll frighten too many of the “soft” Tory voters who would vote for the Lib/Dems or a centralist Labour leader. Vote Miliband get Krankie probably won Call me Dave the 2015 election. 

I wouldn’t expect a coalition to include the SNP, just three three UK wide parties.

This bi election is a classic example of what is wrong with FPTP, Labour win by just a few hundred votes, it could easily have gone Tory yet over 60% of the vote went to lefties. The system is fucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Turkish said:

A rallying call for an incompetent bunch to be ousted by an even more incompetent bunch, nice one Soggy. 🤣

How could you possibly tell. We’ve had this incompetent bunch for 11 years

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, aintforever said:

This bi election is a classic example of what is wrong with FPTP, Labour win by just a few hundred votes, it could easily have gone Tory yet over 60% of the vote went to lefties. The system is fucked.

Aren't you just confirming LD's point that the 'left' vote is split by too many choices?

2021 results :

Labour = 13,296

Conservative = 12,973

Workers Party = 8,264

Lib Dems = 1,254

Previous results (GE 2019) :

Labour Co-op = 22,594

Conservative = 19,069

Instead of bringing the party together, Starmer appears to be causing it to split.  It seems that you are blaming the system based on the results of this by election, because the Labour pary has no unity!  You didn't have the same complaint in 2015 when the result was more convincing under the same system....

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Aren't you just confirming LD's point that the 'left' vote is split by too many choices?

2021 results :

Labour = 13,296

Conservative = 12,973

Workers Party = 8,264

Lib Dems = 1,254

Previous results (GE 2019) :

Labour Co-op = 22,594

Conservative = 19,069

Instead of bringing the party together, Starmer appears to be causing it to split.  It seems that you are blaming the system based on the results of this by election, because the Labour pary has no unity!  You didn't have the same complaint in 2015 when the result was more convincing under the same system....

I would absolutely guarantee that Aintforever thought that FPTP was a shit system in 2015 so would have the "same complaints" as now.

FPTP is a shit system regardless of the result of any particular seat or election.

Edited by CB Fry
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You didn't have the same complaint in 2015 when the result was more convincing under the same system....

Yes I did, I've always thought it was a shit system. Dominic Cummings is spot on when he says that any system that gives us a choice between Johnson and Corbyn is not fit for purpose. Think of the amount of brilliant, talented people this country produces, and we are left with a binary choice of a bullshitting fat shagger or an aged anti-capitalist.

Edited by aintforever
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Yes I did, I've always thought it was a shit system. Dominic Cummings is spot on when he says that any system that gives us a choice between Johnson and Corbyn is not fit for purpose. Think of the amount of brilliant, talented people this country produces, and we are left with a binary choice of a bullshitting fat shagger or an aged anti-capitalist.

Absolutely. Everyone’s vote should mean something. People bang on about democracy but there is nothing democratic about the current way we elect our representatives. Minorities just get drowned out. It’s a crap system and it has always been a crap system, no matter who wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Absolutely. Everyone’s vote should mean something. 

What on earth are you on about. Unless you have one representative per voter there will always be voters whose vote doesn’t translate into their  candidate winning whatever system you use.
 

Every vote means something, not just the ones that the winning candidate gets. 
 

If I’m the only bloke voting for Fred dustbin lid Jones, how does my vote mean something under PR and not under FPTP 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})