Keir Starmer at it again..

[leedswolf]

Who is taking that vote away from me or you?

If the Labour Party was to stay the same as it was under the last left wing traditionalist then the same thing would happen.

To get other votes, including mine, it needs to change and I won't be the only one will I?

To say the last GE was just about Brexit is head in the sand stuff.

Starmer is taking that vote away in the Labour Party.

If the LP is to stay and stand by it's traditional and whither, so be it. The electorate needs to find the party that suits it's political ideology.

To think voters aren't influenced by the right wing press is head in the sand stuff.

 

[Johnny75]

How is Starmer preventing anybody from voting?

 

[leedswolf]

How is Starmer preventing anybody from voting?

Post #1296

 

[prawnking]

It's always the Right we need to compromise with too. Never the Left. Great issue with that approach is that it ensures that political discourse moves ever rightwards.

This is a soft Right country and has been as long as I've been alive. The electorate generally is terrified of the hard left, rightly or wrongly.

At some point you have to deal with things as they are, not how you want them to be, a problem the far Left has always struggled with, in my experience.

You're never going to change anything in eternal opposition (a state I often suspect suits the more ideologically 'pure' on the Left)

 

[Johnny75]

Post #1296

Not selecting somebody is not preventing you voting is it?

 

[leedswolf]

Not selecting somebody is not preventing you voting is it?

Erm, yes it is.

 

[Johnny75]

Erm, yes it is.

Just because you don't get to vote for who you want doesn't prevent you voting.

I'd like to vote for somebody who's sole policy is the implementation of free beer on a Friday. That isn't going to happen either.

 

[leedswolf]

Just because you don't get to vote for who you want doesn't prevent you voting.

I didn't state that. It's down to the membership to decide who they select. By barring a canditate is preventing the membership from having the option to vote.

 

[leedswolf]

This is a soft Right country and has been as long as I've been alive. The electorate generally is terrified of the hard left, rightly or wrongly.

At some point you have to deal with things as they are, not how you want them to be, a problem the far Left has always struggled with, in my experience.

You're never going to change anything in eternal opposition (a state I often suspect suits the more ideologically 'pure' on the Left)

Then the party has to move by having sufficient membership numbers to democratically change within the party rules. If that's the case then so be it, I don't have a problem. It's the insidious stuff that goes against those principles and is essentially counter-productive that angers me.

It seems to me that those disillusioned with the Tories seek to demand the Labour Party change to suit their political stance than trying to return the Tory Party to a more acceptable option for them.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

I didn't state that. It's down to the membership to decide who they select. By barring a canditate is preventing the membership from having the option to vote.

Didnt "membership selection" give us Liz Truss.

 

[leedswolf]

Didnt "membership selection" give us Liz Truss.

In the Labour Party?

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

In the Labour Party?

Not thus far, but for me trusting members to make sensible decisions on behalf of the rest of us, is tantamount to trusting the church to do the same.

 

[leedswolf]

Not thus far, but for me trusting members to make sensible decisions on behalf of the rest of us, is tantamount to trusting the church to do the same.

You're comparing apples with God knows what else. The Tory party membership only had a choice between the two candidates put forward as selected by the parliamentary party's process. In fact to prevent the membership having any say in the choice of Sunak, there wasn't a choice.

 

[Templeton Peck]

This is a soft Right country and has been as long as I've been alive. The electorate generally is terrified of the hard left, rightly or wrongly.

At some point you have to deal with things as they are, not how you want them to be, a problem the far Left has always struggled with, in my experience.

You're never going to change anything in eternal opposition (a state I often suspect suits the more ideologically 'pure' on the Left)

Self fulfilling. We've moved right as a nation and continue to do so. There isn't a magic point where we just settle. Keep accommodating and compromising with the Right and we just drift further along. At what point do you draw the line?

I'd also argue the public has been deliberately misled by the media over the last 40 years due to the influence of people like Rothermere and Murdoch. BBC too as they're scared of their own shadow. There needs to be some sort of voice left of Blair just to remind people a different conversation is possible.

The more the public heard from Labour in 2017 the more they liked it which is why the gap closed once the media had to report fairly. It was all a bit too close for comfort so media spent the next 2 years pouring buckets of shit on Corbyn and giving Johnson a free pass. That coupled with the shit Brexit policy was enough to hand Johnson victory.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

You're comparing apples with God knows what else. The Tory party membership only had a choice between the two candidates put forward as selected by the parliamentary party's process. In fact to prevent the membership having any say in the choice of Sunak, there wasn't a choice.

I bow to your superior knowledge (no sarcasm meant) but for me, i have a real fear of absolute immovable, die hards in any form, having the final say for the rest of us. Perhaps the maga (the election was stolen) mob are a better example than the church, but whatever, i dont trust those "its all gods will fuckers" one bit.

 

[leedswolf]

I bow to your superior knowledge (no sarcasm meant) but for me, i have a real fear of absolute immovable, die hards in any form, having the final say for the rest of us. Perhaps the maga (the election was stolen) mob are a better example than the church, but whatever, i dont trust those "its all gods will fuckers" one bit.

The fact is somebody has to make a decision on political party matters and that should be the membership. The electorate would be the litmus test when it comes to a broader approval. Unfortunately through the increased media involvement (and influence) electorate decisions are seemingly made on slogans, popularity contests, populism, nationalism, etc and not on any genuine political nuance.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Worth pointing out that Driscoll hasn't been nearly as successful as he claims (shades of Lage banging about 'most away wins ever') and sharing a platform with Ken Loach then not backing down given recent history is just foolish.

 

[leedswolf]

Worth pointing out that Driscoll hasn't been nearly as successful as he claims (shades of Lage banging about 'most away wins ever') and sharing a platform with Ken Loach then not backing down given recent history is just foolish.

Then let the local membership decide when he stands...

 

[Johnny75]

Self fulfilling. We've moved right as a nation and continue to do so. There isn't a magic point where we just settle. Keep accommodating and compromising with the Right and we just drift further along. At what point do you draw the line?

I'd also argue the public has been deliberately misled by the media over the last 40 years due to the influence of people like Rothermere and Murdoch. BBC too as they're scared of their own shadow. There needs to be some sort of voice left of Blair just to remind people a different conversation is possible.

The more the public heard from Labour in 2017 the more they liked it which is why the gap closed once the media had to report fairly. It was all a bit too close for comfort so media spent the next 2 years pouring buckets of shit on Corbyn and giving Johnson a free pass. That coupled with the shit Brexit policy was enough to hand Johnson victory.

You really believe Corbyn was closing the gap?

Come on now, that's just silly.

 

[leedswolf]

You really believe Corbyn was closing the gap?

Come on now, that's just silly.

Please explain;

2017 GE - The Tories returned 317 MPs—a net loss of 13 seats relative to 2015—despite winning 42.4% of the vote (its highest share of the vote since 1983), whereas the Labour Party made a net gain of 30 seats with 40.0% (its highest vote share since 2001 and its highest increase in vote share between two general elections since 1945.