After the Forde Report's publication, and it being written in black and white what the Blairites were up to for four years especially in 2017 and 2019, that line really needs to be taken out the back and shot between the eyes
No, it really doesn't. ****ing the Labour Party because someone else supposedly ****ed them is a gift to the Tories. Tarry acted like a prick because of his deselection. He basically spells it out in this article posted on the 9th: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...llot-ilford-south-angela-rayner-b1011041.html
Indeed. Tarry knew that his unofficial off-message media quotes would have to see him lose his Shadow Cabinet role. If he didn't like the policy then he could have resigned. He didn't. I totally get that seemingly failing to support workers on a picket line is anathema for any Labour supporters, but this is not the time for individuals to set themselves against the leadership. All that does is give the media and the Tories ammunition to help them get off the ropes: R4Today rolling out Diane Abbott to answer loaded questions from Nick Robinson being a prime example. If an election is called in the next 6 months at least, then there is every chance of a change of Government. Let's face it, anything other than Tory will be an improvement and then a new Labour or coalition administration can be held to account.
Yes, it was a gift to the Tories In 2019 Starmer acted like a prick because he said that Tarry was sacked for inventing policy on the fly, which begs the question why Rachel Reeves wasn't sacked earlier this week for...inventing policy on the fly, as between 9am and lunchtime Labour had burned through four separate policies on rail nationalisation entirely because of Reeves inventing policy on the fly during an interview Saying that he sacked somebody for something he turns a blind eye to when one of his inner circle does the exact same thing is a gift to the Tories, especially when Starmer could just as easily had done nothing - after all, Tarry was getting deselected - as that would have given the Tories no ammunition at all Luke Akehurst has surely got to be in with a shout as the worst advisor in recent British political history, when you consider how often Starmer finds himself taking the wrong path and having situations that could have been avoided eating up days (or weeks) of the news cycle
She misheard something and corrected herself. Tarry clearly did neither of those things. Tarry created this situation intentionally and you know he did.
Under Corbyn the country voted to leave the EU and Johnson won a massive majority. It doesn't matter why or whether Corbyn had the best policies, he was a disaster as the Leader of the Opposition.
You need to look up what 'begs the question' actually means as you always misuse it.... I know most people also make the same mistake but it's a very useful concept and it would be a shame to lose it.
I think that Corbyn had some good policies and they were pretty popular in isolation. The man himself seemed to intentionally walk into minefields, though. A lot of the attacks on him were disingenuous at best, but he left himself so open to them.
If Reeves "misspoke" then Starmer would have stuck to the party line and cleared up the SNAFU within an hour Starmer did not do this, instead his response to reeves "misspeaking" was to give a noncommittal statement about fiscal responsibility (and thankfully did not bring NATO into it...) while avoiding actually saying what the policy on rail nationalisation was, as that clarification did not come until the mid-afternoon, or to put it another way he eventually gave a fifth policy on the same day Which once again points to some really poor direction from Luke Akehurst, because once again Starmer could have gone on record and said what the policy was and kept a clear, firm line going forward - instead it was a muddle when there was no reason for it to be one
His policies were fine but he was a hopeless leader and should never have been put in that position. Boris Johnson is much worse in every respect of course...
In care you weren't paying attention, the country voted to leave the EU under David Cameron And, again, when the Forde Report lays out the degree of sabotage going on at labour HQ because the Blairites couldn't handle somebody who wasn't one of them running the party, to the point they were siphoning funds intended to fight for marginal seats to safe seats, it becomes clear who was useless in the opposition: the people who decided that the country only wanted Tories or Blairites in charge I think you need to re-read the comment and realise that I was using the phrase in exactly the way that it should be used
The Leader of the Opposition's only job is to oppose stupid policies of the Government and win elections. Corbyn failed on both counts. It doesn't matter what the reasons were. Under almost any other possible Labour leader we would still be in the EU.
Starmer is currently failing on the first count, and the last time I checked we're also not in the EU under Starmer
Agreed on the first point but it only matters when there us actually a vote. Your second point is bonkers. Corbyn is one of those left wingers who can't support the EU because it is essentially a capitalist organisation. The pragmatic view is that it is much better than the alternative and he should have fought hard to keep us in.
I'd have been much happier if he committed to something on Brexit, even if it were leaving. He could've pushed for a more sensible policy and it would've been better for him in the election.
A proper leader would have clamped down on such stuff though. Starmer sacks people who undermine him. Corbyn didn’t even seem to know it was happening.
And that's the issue: Stamer isn't opposing Tory policy when there isn't a vote, as demonstrated by him supporting NHS privatisation a couple of weeks back with the insane logic that supporting NHS privatisation could win him an election. Who the ****ing hell suggested to him that NHS privatisation is a surefire vote winner? It's utterly bonkers, not only because it's hard to see how that will appeal to red Wall voters but also because you can see it pissing off voters everywhere else Also, my second point is not bonkers, not since Starmer ruled out rejoining the single market at the start of the month with his "Make Jonestown Work", which is not the pragmatic option because we're in a mess of the Tories' creation that is as toxic and unworkable as the Chernobyl No4 reactor, the pragmatic option is to say you respect the result but wish to keep freedom of movement and access to the single market - and guess whose position that was, before getting backseated into second referendum?
