The Labour Party

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I think it makes a pleasant change to see a front bench that reflects normal people who can relate to the country on a normal level. These are real people who have lived real lives and have a far greater understanding of what is actually going on than the strange bunch opposite who seem to inhabit a parallel universe and can’t answer basic questions without trotting out meaningless sound bites. If you want “thick” you don’t need to look much further than the Tory front bench (plus the likes of Dorries). I’d choose Rayner over any of those.

It’s not her relatability that I see an issue more the conviction and substance of her answers when questioned. That is not subliminal interpretation due to her being Northern or a woman. As I said I want to her to be good and convincing but she doesn’t convince me most of the time.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, SotonianWill said:

once again as i’ve already explained it has nothing to do with regional accents. It’s more to do with the fact she has no qualifications. Fair enough she was a care worker but she still was elected as an MP in her early 30s. This in my view is too quick to be able to claim educational pros (as she dosent have them) or enough time to claim a “normal life” benefit to electorate. There are many more people who have lived a normal life, are they fit to be in cabinet? 

Here i’m not advocating for a bunch of poshos leading us, likewise a bunch of people with no qualification just because they’re “normal”. Id want a mix of education and experience of normality. 

 

That’s not really a good argument though is it? I’m not looking to vote one as “they’re less thick than the other”. I don’t think either party should be thick on the front bench and it shows the lack of quality that this is the case. Sadly from Rayner v Dowden a couple weeks ago it’s solidified it for me - clearly they’re both out of their depth. I can’t stand petty politics which is why i’ll probably vote neither into power. Sadly, others will. 

I agree that the Dowden v Rayner was very poor, but there is a lot more to politics than the PMQ’s pantomime. That is petty politics in a nutshell and they all play that game. It doesn’t mean that she is a poor MP or shadow minister. If you look into her life she has had a real battle to get where she is. I would rather someone like her in the House than an entitled vacuous “toff” like Jacob Rees-Mogg.

https://www.greatermancunians.blog/angela-rayner-labour-politician-ashton-mp

Edited 26 June, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, SotonianWill said:

once again as i’ve already explained it has nothing to do with regional accents. It’s more to do with the fact she has no qualifications. Fair enough she was a care worker but she still was elected as an MP in her early 30s. This in my view is too quick to be able to claim educational pros (as she dosent have them) or enough time to claim a “normal life” benefit to electorate. There are many more people who have lived a normal life, are they fit to be in cabinet? 

Here i’m not advocating for a bunch of poshos leading us, likewise a bunch of people with no qualification just because they’re “normal”. Id want a mix of education and experience of normality.

What 'qualifications' do you expect ? Prep school, Eton, and a PPE at Oxbridge ? Being a rich investment banker ? Being the son of a Lord and former Cabinet member ? Having been a researcher for and assistant to an existing MP before being parachuted into a safe seat ? Woe betide having an MP who has lived a 'real' life.

Or is there an age qualification ? The youngest current MP was elected at the age of 23, and at the last election 21 MPs were under 30, what life experience did they have, eh ?

Edited 26 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[SotonianWill]

21 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What 'qualifications' do you expect ? Prep school, Eton, and a PPE at Oxbridge ? Being a rich investment banker ? Being the son of a Lord and former Cabinet member ? Having been a researcher for and assistant to an existing MP before being parachuted into a safe seat ? Woe betide having an MP who has lived a 'real' life.

Sorry mate i’m not going to debate with you as you clearly did not read what I had previously said. 

[SotonianWill]

41 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I agree that the Dowden v Rayner was very poor, but there is a lot more to politics than the PMQ’s pantomime. That is petty politics in a nutshell and they all play that game. It doesn’t mean that she is a poor MP or shadow minister. If you look into her life she has had a real battle to get where she is. I would rather someone like her in the House than an entitled vacuous “toff” like Jacob Rees-Mogg.

https://www.greatermancunians.blog/angela-rayner-labour-politician-ashton-mp

I agree to some degree. I don’t deny she is an asset as an MP however I don’t see her as a cabinet type. She’s a good reactionary to policy with broad ideas, but as a dictator of policy with detailed analysis I simply don’t see it from whenever i’ve seen her debate. I think Keir has acknowledged this by sidelining her recently.  

[buctootim]

Just now, SotonianWill said:

I agree to some degree. I don’t deny she is an asset as an MP however I don’t see her as a cabinet type. She’s a good reactionary to policy with broad ideas, but as a dictator of policy with detailed analysis I simply don’t see it from whenever i’ve seen her debate. I think Keir has acknowledged this by sidelining her recently.  

Broadly agree. She will probably never have the best grasp of detailed policy but having MPs with a wide variety of lived experience is important. They are supposed to be represntatives of the people after all, not just of a very narrow slice.  

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

Sorry mate i’m not going to debate with you as you clearly did not read what I had previously said. 

You said that you wanted "a mix of education and experience of normality." after stating you didn't see Angela Raynor as being suitable as an MP because her election in her early 30s was "too quick to be able to claim educational pros (as she dosent have them) or enough time to claim a “normal life” benefit to electorate". Those statements contradict each other.

You also said that she had "no qualifications", so I asked what qualifications you expected.

 

I clearly did read what you posted.

[Farmer Saint]

I like Raynor, great norks. 

[SotonianWill]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You said that you wanted "a mix of education and experience of normality." after stating you didn't see Angela Raynor as being suitable as an MP because her election in her early 30s was "too quick to be able to claim educational pros (as she dosent have them) or enough time to claim a “normal life” benefit to electorate". Those statements contradict each other.

You also said that she had "no qualifications", so I asked what qualifications you expected.

 

I clearly did read what you posted.

My argument said ideally I’d want an MPs with a mix of both experience or qualifications but you played the boring game of generalising my opinion. 

Yes, I didn’t believe Rayner had a long enough time frame of experience to justify her place on normality alone. I felt if you were getting in on experience alone i’d much rather someone from a union of longer years who’s been there, done it, seen it all. Is that not the point of experience?

What you wrongly insinuated was that I believed (when saying ‘qualifications’) I meant:

 Prep school, Eton, and a PPE at Oxbridge ? Being a rich investment banker ? Being the son of a Lord and former Cabinet member ? 

This is completely untrue, education can come from many different places. When I mention Rayners qualifications I am clearly referring to her lack of even basic GCSEs which just 18% leave school without. This is not to knock people without GCSEs but why should I feel encouraged by this person then being in a job as high as “deputy prime minister”, or even shadow education minister which she was beforehand? I’d hope by voting for these people they’d be more qualified than even myself and 80% of the country before becoming a lawmaker in this country.  

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Personally I see Rayner as an asset to Labour as 1. Her backstory is powerful, it's genuinely very impressive what she's achieved, 2. She's a scrapper - Prescott like - that's not a bad thing alongside the relative blandness of Starmer.

[Tamesaint]

Moving back to Lisa Nandy a minute... I think she is pretty good. She can talk the hindlegs off a donkey and needs to learn to shut up when she has said enough but I quite rate her. Have I missed something recently which puts her in a bad light?

[whelk]

26 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Moving back to Lisa Nandy a minute... I think she is pretty good. She can talk the hindlegs off a donkey and needs to learn to shut up when she has said enough but I quite rate her. Have I missed something recently which puts her in a bad light?

Only my impression when she was on Laura K (or maybe Sophie Ridge). Nothing catastrophic but seemed more rehearsed lines than articulating answers quickly. Not unique to her and Sunak is the master bot responder - cannot believe his advisors are not flagging this as a massive communication issue.

[The Kraken]

54 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Moving back to Lisa Nandy a minute... I think she is pretty good. She can talk the hindlegs off a donkey and needs to learn to shut up when she has said enough but I quite rate her. Have I missed something recently which puts her in a bad light?

I’m with you, I like Lisa Nandy. She speaks well and seems pretty switched on, she’s passionate about what she does and she seems to have a relatively decent moral compass. As for Ange, I think she’s great, she’s not the most eloquent but I think she’s brighter than most give her credit for. Cracking chest rascals too.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, SotonianWill said:

My argument said ideally I’d want an MPs with a mix of both experience or qualifications but you played the boring game of generalising my opinion. 

Yes, I didn’t believe Rayner had a long enough time frame of experience to justify her place on normality alone. I felt if you were getting in on experience alone i’d much rather someone from a union of longer years who’s been there, done it, seen it all. Is that not the point of experience?

What you wrongly insinuated was that I believed (when saying ‘qualifications’) I meant:

 Prep school, Eton, and a PPE at Oxbridge ? Being a rich investment banker ? Being the son of a Lord and former Cabinet member ? 

This is completely untrue, education can come from many different places. When I mention Rayners qualifications I am clearly referring to her lack of even basic GCSEs which just 18% leave school without. This is not to knock people without GCSEs but why should I feel encouraged by this person then being in a job as high as “deputy prime minister”, or even shadow education minister which she was beforehand? I’d hope by voting for these people they’d be more qualified than even myself and 80% of the country before becoming a lawmaker in this country.  

What qualifications are needed for the 'deputy prime minister' or even Prime Minister role?

Not sure it's quantifiable like a doctor or a vet.

If you are good enough, you can do it, if not, you can't....

[buctootim]

5 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Cracking chest rascals too.

Best euphemism of the day!! 😄

[whelk]

Just heard interview with Wes Streeting. Interesting likeable character, gay, Christian and grandad who was an armed robber. Grew up in poverty and got to Cambridge. But something refreshing in that he sounds more genuine than most politicians. 

[whelk]

Oh and he also had kidney cancer

[andypen]

Yes, heard him speak a few times, seems a sensible honest type. 

Lucky for him they caught the cancer early and were able to remove it, if it goes to stage 4 (ie spreads outside the kidney) it's a completely different ball game...

[Ribtickler]

Labour Party couldn’t run an illegal invasion into Iraq.

that’s all I will say on the matter 

[whelk]

Finally something substantial proposed in renationalising the railways.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

54 minutes ago, whelk said:

Finally something substantial proposed in renationalising the railways.

From everything I've heard I think Labour's manifesto is going to be very strong and popular.  Water nationalised and British energy both very popular too.  

[The Kraken]

3 hours ago, whelk said:

Finally something substantial proposed in renationalising the railways.

Another political tap in too, trains have got even worse despite the companies making massive profits and therefore dividend payments to shareholders. So let’s start by reinvesting those profits instead.

 

Edited April 25 by The Kraken

[Plastic]

I'd rather they started with the water companies tbh.

[trousers]

34 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

trains have got even worse despite the companies making massive profits

I remember the days of British Rail when trains were often unreliable, late, cancelled, dirty, falling apart... sound familiar...?

Whilst there's no denying that many private train operators are shite, the railways really weren't any better under British Rail, in my experience.

Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that a nationalised railway wouldn't work this time around, but it's also not necessarily the silver bullet some think it'll be either.

Could say the same about some other industries too. 

Edited April 25 by trousers

[Gloucester Saint]

18 hours ago, trousers said:

I remember the days of British Rail when trains were often unreliable, late, cancelled, dirty, falling apart... sound familiar...?

Whilst there's no denying that many private train operators are shite, the railways really weren't any better under British Rail, in my experience.

Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that a nationalised railway wouldn't work this time around, but it's also not necessarily the silver bullet some think it'll be either.

Could say the same about some other industries too. 

There’s some truth in this, and some expectation management, I still remember (and laugh at) the Smith and Jones Intershitty sketch.

The one big improvement which can made if gotten right is on cost and the ticketing system. It’s horrifically expensive under the current mess of a ticketing framework to travel any distance on the faster lines which is also where the environmental benefits stack up in getting people out of cars.

I drove to work for years because of this (through some dreadful traffic) but in moving here have found a way of commuting to the Midlands using a free car park and split tickets on fast rail routes. Takes planning and organisation, far more than it should, but it works. The local franchises such as West Midlands Rail I’d probably leave be tbh, but the nationals and biggest regionals - LNER (which makes surpluses and runs better in public hands and loses money in commercial), Cross Country, Arriva, SWT and GWR work better nationalised as their margins are so much tighter than the local ones and maintenance bigger, more complex staffing.

The key is to be able to invest strategically on upgrades when needed which where BR fell down a bit. And they’ll be competing with defence, education, local authorities etc, all of which have been hollowed out in recent years.  

The case for renationalisation is strongest in water because that has never really worked and to invest in the infrastructure and sewerage needed means the margins aren’t there. Hence the Thames Water debacle and also it’s unfair that for example millions visit Devon and Cornwall every summer yet the bill for keeping some of the beaches clean falls on the water ratepayers there via SWW.

In rail, it’ll be popular and not as expensive (I don’t agree it will be cost free but it will save the commuter some much needed money). Overall I support it as at least there’s more accountability potentially and like water, it’s not an obvious profit generator like telecommunications where investment, innovation and good margins go in hand in hand. 

Edited April 26 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

Pretty good PR piece for Starmer and Labour. Jim Ratcliffe endorses. For anyone in doubt he is not a leftie

https://news.sky.com/story/sir-jim-ratcliffe-scolds-tories-over-handling-of-economy-and-immigration-after-brexit-13139088

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Pretty good PR piece for Starmer and Labour. Jim Ratcliffe endorses. For anyone in doubt he is not a leftie

https://news.sky.com/story/sir-jim-ratcliffe-scolds-tories-over-handling-of-economy-and-immigration-after-brexit-13139088

I agree with some of what he says and it’s plain that Starmer has the life experience to do a huge job which Sunak doesn’t have, added to leading an ungovernable and unmanageable party divided for generations about Europe and underpinned by a membership of elderly swivel eyed loons (Cameron).

On immigration is where I diverge. Again, we’ve got to make a clear distinction between the nurse from the Philippines coming to help reduce waiting lists and A&E times, the oncology PhD student coming to study and train with his/her family, and illegal asylum seekers being exploited by smugglers risking their lives on a boat.

Empathetic to the latter, but fast track convictions much stiffer jail terms are needed for smugglers before the defence side can get mobilised - if people die in the crossings, that’s manslaughter, full terms for each person drowned/killed with no parole option - and cases have got to processed very quickly and effectively so that people are heading back to France before activist lawyers have even got the appeals paperwork up and running. Still far cheaper than the Rwandan figleaf which only addresses what, 3% of illegal cases. Won’t stop all of them but it’s a hell of risk to take. There’s other types of crime without a 30 year stretch attached. 

The first two categories, on the second, a far right former Home Secretary (Braverman) artifically put them in the migration figures in the first place to stir hatred, so actually the Tory party has caused its own problems here. As former Tory Minister Jo Johnson says, they should never been in the figures in the first place. They’re more like tourists, and the minority who do stay and work are an asset who help deliver services and pay taxes/rents. They are young and healthy, research showing that they rarely trouble the NHS. Those that don’t increase essential services in their nation of origin, soft power for the UK.

On the first category, we need to waive the stupid hikes in visa costs Braverman introduced to get our health service back on track, and that’s also true for the second category. It’s to pay for the extortionate Rwanda figleaf which isn’t needed. 

 

Edited May 19 by Gloucester Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

39 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

 

 

Empathetic to the latter, but fast track convictions much stiffer jail terms are needed for smugglers before the defence side can get mobilised - if people die in the crossings, that’s manslaughter, full terms for each person drowned/killed with no parole option - and cases have got to processed very quickly and effectively so that people are heading back to France before activist lawyers have even got the appeals paperwork up and running. 

 

 

Laughable, you call Tory members “swivel eyed loons”, then come up with the biggest load of lunatic pony as a solution.

 

Firstly, you won’t get “no parole”  for manslaughter. How are you going to even capture these people smugglers, let alone prosecute them. It’s fucking deluded pony.

Secondly, you can’t bypass the justice system by convicting people before their defence “can mobilise”. We’re not fucking North Korea, people are entitled to a fair trial. 

Thirdly, good luck with sending people back to France. 

[AlexLaw76]

All well and good going after the 'people smugglers', it is almost like no one across Europe has thought of that.

Trouble is, whilst there are hordes of immigrants willingly to pay someone thousands of £££ to cross the channel, there will always be people facilitating it.

[Gloucester Saint]

25 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

All well and good going after the 'people smugglers', it is almost like no one across Europe has thought of that.

Trouble is, whilst there are hordes of immigrants willingly to pay someone thousands of £££ to cross the channel, there will always be people facilitating it.

We’re going to have work in more close co-operation with the French and others, including rebuilding access to Interpol to proactively track and intercept the smugglers https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/01/uk-police-and-border-force-to-remain-locked-out-of-eu-database-of-criminals

Otherwise we are just paying large sums to the French police to just watch illegal and lethal vessels be boarded and launched under their nose

https://www.itv.com/watch/news/itv-news-witnesses-french-police-standing-by-watching-as-migrants-board-boats/42dyrpw

There is a black market which people will supply, that’s right. And climate change is going to make it worse.

Duck - you don’t like my suggestions on speeding up processing of cases and pursuing smuggler leaders, and those funding it, what would you do? Because hiking visa costs at 40% a time for legal migration to pay for 3% of illegal attempted migrants to leave via the Rwanda scheme isn’t sustainable, let alone the huge taxpayer costs. 

[whelk]

52 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

All well and good going after the 'people smugglers', it is almost like no one across Europe has thought of that.

Trouble is, whilst there are hordes of immigrants willingly to pay someone thousands of £££ to cross the channel, there will always be people facilitating it.

Thought you’d like Ratcliffe referencing cities the size of Southampton 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Duck - you don’t like my suggestions on speeding up processing of cases and pursuing smuggler leaders, and those funding it, what would you do? Because hiking visa costs at 40% a time for legal migration to pay for 3% of illegal attempted migrants to leave via the Rwanda scheme isn’t sustainable, let alone the huge taxpayer costs. 

Thinking pursuing smuggler leaders will stop the trade is akin to claiming locking up all drug dealers will stop drugs being sold. If you lock one smuggling gang leader up, all you do is create a vacancy which will soon be filled. The only way you stop it, is to stop people paying and you do this by making staying in The EU a far better proposition than risking your life crossing the channel. 
 

Ive never believed Rwanda would work, because of soft arsed lefties crying about it and putting obstacles in the way, but the principle of it being a deterrent is right (which is why the EU & even the UN are looking at similar schemes). Anyone seeking asylum via a small boat gets shipped off to some god forsaken place (Scotland ideally, but unfortunate Hadrians wall is obsolete) to have their claim assessed. Maybe an overseas territory, there must be somewhere in the middle of nowhere we can use. We could even set up a token embassy in Calais where people can claim asylum and as a result make crossing the Chanel to do so illegal We can then establish a secure detention centre in some remote part of the uk. 
 

So the “asylum seeker” in Calais options are.

1. Stay in the EU and make a life.

2. Apply for asylum to the UK in Calais, but the application will take years as the civil service are fucking useless, and the checks on your identity may take years. You’re in France so there’s no imminent danger to you so you’ll be low priority as you wait it out in The Jungle. 
 

3. Pay to get to the uk on a dangerous Chanel crossing, where you’ll be shipped to some god forsaken hell hole for years whilst your case is slowly assessed. You’ll be at the back of the queue, behind the people who followed the correct procedure in Calais. 
 

Obviously, there is a 4th option. You make it to the UK unnoticed and slip into the black economy, as well as a 5th, you drown trying. 

 

Which one will they choose? 

Edited May 19 by Lord Duckhunter

[Gloucester Saint]

1 and 2 sound like the sensible options to me. I’m not against Rwanda ideologically or morally but more on cost and efficacy - it will deal with so few asylum seekers as a %for what it costs. Would need some resource for the embassy in France and shared staffing but I think that’s a good investment as at least some of the people will feel there’s a chance without risking it in the busiest shipping lane on the planet. It’s better than paying the French police and border staff as we do now but both nations have a huge coastline so some will take more risky spots to cross. 

We receive the fifth most asylum seekers in W Europe so closer co-operation with the other four is probably an idea if they do come up with a Rwandan alternative which could bring the cost per applicant down. Some of the Tory right might not like working more closely with leading EU nations and the Labour left won’t like the idea of third nation zones whilst processinh but it’s a problem involving multiple borders and also it could neutralise some of the ECHR discourse. Climate change will also increase numbers from sub-Saharan Africa in future decades so co-operation seems sensible as tensions from the Brexit period hopefully ease.

Also, the deal with Albania has cut boat seekers there from 4k to low hundreds, politically impossible with nations like Syria, Iran and Iraq, but Vietnam should be possible say.

4 and 5 will no doubt be tried and a few will succeed whatever other options are taken.

Dare I say it, post-Macron further progress may be possible https://ukandeu.ac.uk/understanding-the-france-uk-border-control-conundrum-a-closer-look/#:~:text=Despite the warm words at,return agreement with the EU.

Edited May 19 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

At least Starmer has seemingly expelled Corbyn. That's a step in the right direction. 

[hypochondriac]

Positive news keeps coming with Starmer ridding himself of hard left headbangers and weirdos like Faiza Shaheen Shaheen and the ginger weirdo from Brighton. Maybe he is serious about making positive changes in his party. 

Edited Thursday at 15:41 by hypochondriac

[Jeremy Corbyn]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Positive news keeps coming with Starmer ridding himself of hard left headbangers and weirdos like Faiza Shaheen Shaheen and the ginger weirdo from Brighton. Maybe he is serious about making positive changes in his party. 

BBC making a big deal that Labour are in turmoil because they've "angered the left" whilst it will be perceived very positively by the swing voters.  Having Dianne Abbott moaning about Labour is a good thing for Labour.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

BBC making a big deal that Labour are in turmoil because they've "angered the left" whilst it will be perceived very positively by the swing voters.  Having Dianne Abbott moaning about Labour is a good thing for Labour.

100%. Starmer is doing exactly what he needs to by appealing to the floaters and ridding himself of the Fringe loons who make the most noise. 

[The Kraken]

They’re having a bit of a stumble today. The Diane Abbott situation should have been resolved ages ago but we’ve still got the will-she won’t-she stand nonsense going on. Just get on with it, make it clear she’s not standing, it’s a vote winner for some inside the party who have had enough of the mental left cranks and it’s definitely appealing to swing voters.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Just now, The Kraken said:

They’re having a bit of a stumble today. The Diane Abbott situation should have been resolved ages ago but we’ve still got the will-she won’t-she stand nonsense going on. Just get on with it, make it clear she’s not standing, it’s a vote winner for some inside the party who have had enough of the mental left cranks and it’s definitely appealing to swing voters.

I think the challenge for Labour is that I don't think they can technically block her running for Labour and her constituency will want her, so they're a bit stuck.  They need to look anti-Abbott to win the racists over ultimately.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I think the challenge for Labour is that I don't think they can technically block her running for Labour and her constituency will want her, so they're a bit stuck.  They need to look anti-Abbott to win the racists over ultimately.

Can you dislike Diane Abbott without being a racist? Why does she provoke a greater feeling of dislike compared to other black politicians do you think? 

Edited Thursday at 16:23 by hypochondriac

[The Kraken]

8 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I think the challenge for Labour is that I don't think they can technically block her running for Labour and her constituency will want her, so they're a bit stuck.  They need to look anti-Abbott to win the racists over ultimately.

I don’t disagree but they’re not looking anti Abbott today, Big Ange has come out today and said there’s no reason she shouldn’t stand, I think also someone on the NEC said they’d be voting for her.  Starmer has played it very well, said it’s a matter for the NEC but he only wants the highest quality candidates to put in front of the electorate. We all know what he means by that, it’s unambiguous without outright saying it.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

They’re having a bit of a stumble today. The Diane Abbott situation should have been resolved ages ago but we’ve still got the will-she won’t-she stand nonsense going on. Just get on with it, make it clear she’s not standing, it’s a vote winner for some inside the party who have had enough of the mental left cranks and it’s definitely appealing to swing voters.

It looks like their chosen path was to keep Abbott's process going as long as they could (even after it had actually concluded) with the goal of ushering her out. Preferably it seems by influencing the selection process (I think they had to bring in appeals not long ago, due to protests about how they were doing that), or by doing a deal.

It looked like the compromise was that she would be allowed back in, and gets lots of tributes on the way back out. Abbott gets to stay part of labour, and maybe get something after. While Starmer gets to continue his purge, get to point out how much they've changed, while keeping a broader church onboard.

Instead, the purge is more openly revealed and Labour come across as vindictively pushing out long standing MPs to bring in people with the same voice. While popular in some quarters, it also shows the that there are still divisions in his party, and how little the quarters are liked by the people calling the shots.

Abbott has wisely chosen not to give them the out of standing as an independent. That pushes it back onto Labour to show just how much they listen to groups in their own party.

Personally, I've rarely agreed with Abbott. However, she should be entitled to a fair process. If she is back in the party, then the local party should be free of influence to select her. Labour were only to happy to let in a previously apologetic Tory, which has haunted them where Abbott is concerned.

Labour just look weak, pretending to have changed, while clearly not having done that when they could have.

Deputy leader unsurprisingly backing Abbott, highlighting just how strong the divisions actually are. Starmer not getting involved in the process, but deputy doing just that.

[Lord Duckhunter]

John McTernan said on radio yesterday that he knows for an “absolute fact” that had Abbott been given the whip back in Jan/Feb she’d have stood down at this election. Says he can’t understand why Starmer lied saying the investigation was ongoing was he knew it had concluded in Jan/Feb. Thinks it’s been set up deliberately to show the party has changed, but there was no need. Booting out Corbyn showed that, and any votes gained from people who agree with Abbott being barred will be lost to the greens & Lib Dems from the other end. 
 

Personally, I’m glad to see the back of the racist anti semite. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

57 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I don’t disagree but they’re not looking anti Abbott today, Big Ange has come out today and said there’s no reason she shouldn’t stand, I think also someone on the NEC said they’d be voting for her.  Starmer has played it very well, said it’s a matter for the NEC but he only wants the highest quality candidates to put in front of the electorate. We all know what he means by that, it’s unambiguous without outright saying it.

I read that as Starmer pretending not to be involved, while in the very next sentence putting his oar in. That's not a good look.

If you're a supporter in Abbott's constituency, Starmer has just said that your preferred candidate isn't of sufficient quality. Good enough to be back in the party, good enough to be a long standing MP, and good enough to have been a trailblazer throughout apparently. But not good enough for your constituency now. Not because of what she said. Because they let her back in. But because of the voice he wants his party to sing to the electorate.

And that's the leader. I can only imagine the rats in a sack squabbles going on between the functionaries over this, behind the scenes, to try and get her out. One reporter said the briefing that seemingly started this, could have really been from an Abbott supporter about what was happening. But could have just as easily have really been from someone on the other side, wanting to stick the boot in to make sure she couldn't stand.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

100%. Starmer is doing exactly what he needs to by appealing to the floaters and ridding himself of the Fringe loons who make the most noise. 

Whereas Sunak is losing the 'floaters' and is desperately trying to stop his fringe loons from defecting to Reform.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Whereas Sunak is losing the 'floaters' and is desperately trying to stop his fringe loons from defecting to Reform.

Couldn't care less about what Sunak is doing as he will be out and irrelevant shortly. Labour will be running the country so they are now the ones that need analysing. 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Couldn't care less about what Sunak is doing as he will be out and irrelevant shortly. Labour will be running the country so they are now the ones that need analysing. 

Since when did a majority of people make their voting choice by analysing the options ? The majority already know whether they are going to bother, and if so where their 'X' is going.