The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PleaseNotPoll said:
The "Starmer is toxic" narrative simply doesn't exist outside of small pockets on social media.
As I said earlier and as you're pointing out well with this comment, it's Corbyn loyalists attempting to blame him for anything and everything.
It has had virtually no impact on the general public.
Click to expand...
The fact is that it does

Case in point, my father was ringing doorbells to drum up support for Labour in the 80s and he gave up on Starmer during the leadership contest, while my aunt was initially all for him but soured on him very quickly, and neither of them were Corbyn supporters by any means and this certainly isn't a small pocket of social media

And the fact is that Starmer can be blamed for any **** that is happening in the Labour party right now since he's the one in charge, and what's rapidly becoming obvious is the convenient blind eyes he turns, for example the other day Rosie Duffield decided that her Twitter feed should read a lot more like JK Rowling's, yet where is the condemnation or punishment? Nowhere, instead we have Jess Phillips rushing to her defence. Or the tweet sent from Starmer's account the other day calling for solidarity with David Lammy for the racist abuse he receives, a courtesy not offered to Dawn Butler a couple of weeks earlier while in the case of Abbott the line is the abuse she was given from within the party was taken out of context - which is the same defence the LAPD officers who assaulted Rodney King gave to try and explain away the video evidence, by the way

Trying to boil it down to Corbyn vs Starmer is highly reductive, because Starmer's toxicity is nothing to do with Corbyn and has far more in common with Walter Wolfgang heckled Jack Straw at the 2005 Labour conference and was bundled out of the conference hall, kicked out of the party and detained under the Terrorism Act because there's only one voice allowed, and you;d better parrot that voice or you're out
 
President of the USA ,Putin,will be doing Russia's best to get Dipstick re elected so he can further **** the country up some more and more defenceless!
Funny thing. China's going the other way together with Iran.

Watch out for the Ukrainian devils crapping on Biden!
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
The fact is that it does

Case in point, my father was ringing doorbells to drum up support for Labour in the 80s and he gave up on Starmer during the leadership contest, while my aunt was initially all for him but soured on him very quickly, and neither of them were Corbyn supporters by any means and this certainly isn't a small pocket of social media

And the fact is that Starmer can be blamed for any **** that is happening in the Labour party right now since he's the one in charge, and what's rapidly becoming obvious is the convenient blind eyes he turns, for example the other day Rosie Duffield decided that her Twitter feed should read a lot more like JK Rowling's, yet where is the condemnation or punishment? Nowhere, instead we have Jess Phillips rushing to her defence. Or the tweet sent from Starmer's account the other day calling for solidarity with David Lammy for the racist abuse he receives, a courtesy not offered to Dawn Butler a couple of weeks earlier while in the case of Abbott the line is the abuse she was given from within the party was taken out of context - which is the same defence the LAPD officers who assaulted Rodney King gave to try and explain away the video evidence, by the way

Trying to boil it down to Corbyn vs Starmer is highly reductive, because Starmer's toxicity is nothing to do with Corbyn and has far more in common with Walter Wolfgang heckled Jack Straw at the 2005 Labour conference and was bundled out of the conference hall, kicked out of the party and detained under the Terrorism Act because there's only one voice allowed, and you;d better parrot that voice or you're out
Click to expand...
I like Corbyn as a person but he was worse than useless as a leader. The ONLY reason we have Johnson as PM for the foreseeable future is that Corbyn fell for his trap and agreed an early election. Johnson should have been left messing up as a minority PM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
PowerSpurs said:
I like Corbyn as a person but he was worse than useless as a leader. The ONLY reason we have Johnson as PM for the foreseeable future is that Corbyn fell for his trap and agreed an early election. Johnson should have been left messing up as a minority PM.
Click to expand...
This is the point: Corbyn didn't fall for it, it was the Lib Dems and SNP who bit - which wouldn't have been an issue in theory, if not for Swinson's spoiler tactics where they parachuted the likes of Sam Gyimah, Chuka Umunna or Luciana Berger into marginal seats where they chipped away at the Labour vote while leaving the Tory vote unscathed, which was most obvious in Kensington which Labour won in 2017 by 20 votes, but in 2019 with Gyimah parachuted there the Tories won it by 150 votes

More than anything else, the assumed belief is that Corbyn's u-turn on Britait cost Labour - yet the fact is that u-turn was the one suggested to him by Starmer, as Corbyn's was renegotiate a deal and then put it to the electorate so either we would accept the deal or revoke Article 50, which was the only diplomatic option available as the Tories wanted to plough ahead while the Lib Dems wanted to cancel the whole thing, both of which were alienating a chunk of the electorate

The most damning thing of all is that we were told Corbyn offered ineffective leadership yet he oversaw De Pfeffel lose his first dozen parliamentary votes, which Guinness started to get irritated by as that's a dozen records broken for a sitting PM in a row - yet on the flip side, Starmer let the Russia Report slip through his fingers within 48 hours, which is less missing an open goal as it is missing the entire ****ing stadium

What ultimately stings about Corbyn was he was trying to be a unifying figure but wasn't actually unifying the party, hence so much of what came out in Labour Leaks confirmed the worst suspicions be it staffers actively plotting against the party, or the team who were supposed to be investigating allegations of antisemitism deliberately stalling so they had a Narrative that Corbyn wasn't doing enough - and that's the most damning thing Starmer has done, as even though Labour's lawyers said they had a watertight case against them, Starmer settled with them and issued an apology to tell them they were right, when in actual fact they were cynical bastards weaponising antisemitism for their own ends which, frankly, is the most antisemitic thing they could do
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
This is the point: Corbyn didn't fall for it, it was the Lib Dems and SNP who bit - which wouldn't have been an issue in theory, if not for Swinson's spoiler tactics where they parachuted the likes of Sam Gyimah, Chuka Umunna or Luciana Berger into marginal seats where they chipped away at the Labour vote while leaving the Tory vote unscathed, which was most obvious in Kensington which Labour won in 2017 by 20 votes, but in 2019 with Gyimah parachuted there the Tories won it by 150 votes

More than anything else, the assumed belief is that Corbyn's u-turn on Britait cost Labour - yet the fact is that u-turn was the one suggested to him by Starmer, as Corbyn's was renegotiate a deal and then put it to the electorate so either we would accept the deal or revoke Article 50, which was the only diplomatic option available as the Tories wanted to plough ahead while the Lib Dems wanted to cancel the whole thing, both of which were alienating a chunk of the electorate

The most damning thing of all is that we were told Corbyn offered ineffective leadership yet he oversaw De Pfeffel lose his first dozen parliamentary votes, which Guinness started to get irritated by as that's a dozen records broken for a sitting PM in a row - yet on the flip side, Starmer let the Russia Report slip through his fingers within 48 hours, which is less missing an open goal as it is missing the entire ****ing stadium

What ultimately stings about Corbyn was he was trying to be a unifying figure but wasn't actually unifying the party, hence so much of what came out in Labour Leaks confirmed the worst suspicions be it staffers actively plotting against the party, or the team who were supposed to be investigating allegations of antisemitism deliberately stalling so they had a Narrative that Corbyn wasn't doing enough - and that's the most damning thing Starmer has done, as even though Labour's lawyers said they had a watertight case against them, Starmer settled with them and issued an apology to tell them they were right, when in actual fact they were cynical bastards weaponising antisemitism for their own ends which, frankly, is the most antisemitic thing they could do
Click to expand...
Since the fact is that there couldn't have been an election without Labour voting for it your rebuttal fails at the first hurdle. Everything else in your post is irrelevant to my point which is that Corbyn is wholly responsible for the situation we find ourselves in as he is literally the only person in the country who had the power to prevent it.
 
PowerSpurs said:
Since the fact is that there couldn't have been an election without Labour voting for it your rebuttal fails at the first hurdle. Everything else in your post is irrelevant to my point which is that Corbyn is wholly responsible for the situation we find ourselves in as he is literally the only person in the country who had the power to prevent it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's simply not the case for two reasons

1.) The motion for an election was put forth by the Lib Dems and SNP, not Labour
2.) Here's the number of votes available for that motion: Tories 298, Labour 262, SNP 35, Lib Dems 12. If every single Labour MP voted against it, the election still would have gone ahead due to the Lib Dems and SNP pushing for the election based on basic mathematics

Also, the actual vote says a lot

Nays
11 Labour
3 The Independent Change Group For Change Hashtag Change UK Change Independent Ltd Change
3 Plaid Cymru
1 SNP

Abstained
106 Labour (including the following: Tom Watson, Jess Phillips, Liz Kendall, Margaret Hodge)
5 Tory
11 ex-Tory
15 Lib Dem
34 SNP
10 Sinn Fein
7 The Independent Change Group For Change Hashtag Change UK Change Independent Ltd Change

That's right, the Lib Dems and SNP brought the motion for an election...and then ****ed off down the pub rather than, you know, bother voting, so the chances of Labour winning that vote were nil
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
Sorry, but that's simply not the case for two reasons

1.) The motion for an election was put forth by the Lib Dems and SNP, not Labour
2.) Here's the number of votes available for that motion: Tories 298, Labour 262, SNP 35, Lib Dems 12. If every single Labour MP voted against it, the election still would have gone ahead due to the Lib Dems and SNP pushing for the election based on basic mathematics

Also, the actual vote says a lot

Nays
11 Labour
3 The Independent Change Group For Change Hashtag Change UK Change Independent Ltd Change
3 Plaid Cymru
1 SNP

Abstained
106 Labour (including the following: Tom Watson, Jess Phillips, Liz Kendall, Margaret Hodge)
5 Tory
11 ex-Tory
15 Lib Dem
34 SNP
10 Sinn Fein
7 The Independent Change Group For Change Hashtag Change UK Change Independent Ltd Change

That's right, the Lib Dems and SNP brought the motion for an election...and then ****ed off down the pub rather than, you know, bother voting, so the chances of Labour winning that vote were nil
Click to expand...
15 Lib Dems abstained tey they only had 12 votes available, interesting :huh:
 
Diego said:
15 Lib Dems abstained tey they only had 12 votes available, interesting :huh:
Click to expand...
I counted Berger, Gyimah and Umunna as Lib Dems, since they all joined within a few days of the election being called

Probably could've added a couple more to the Lib Dem column, but to be honest I lost track of all the ex-Tories/TICGFCHCILC jumping into the Lib Dems
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
PleaseNotPoll said:
It's very early days and both Labour and the party's leader are polling better than they were.
Corbynites seem obsessed with getting revenge and undermining anyone that might actually challenge the Tories.
It's ludicrous stuff.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they just want Labour to actually propose something different, something radical. Corbyn was very popular in the run up to the last but one election but was undermined from within. The centrists want loyalty but showed none. Labour is de facto 2 parties now and each cannot stand the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
humanbeingincroydon said:
Sorry, but that's simply not the case for two reasons

1.) The motion for an election was put forth by the Lib Dems and SNP, not Labour
2.) Here's the number of votes available for that motion: Tories 298, Labour 262, SNP 35, Lib Dems 12. If every single Labour MP voted against it, the election still would have gone ahead due to the Lib Dems and SNP pushing for the election based on basic mathematics

Also, the actual vote says a lot

Nays
11 Labour
3 The Independent Change Group For Change Hashtag Change UK Change Independent Ltd Change
3 Plaid Cymru
1 SNP

Abstained
106 Labour (including the following: Tom Watson, Jess Phillips, Liz Kendall, Margaret Hodge)
5 Tory
11 ex-Tory
15 Lib Dem
34 SNP
10 Sinn Fein
7 The Independent Change Group For Change Hashtag Change UK Change Independent Ltd Change

That's right, the Lib Dems and SNP brought the motion for an election...and then ****ed off down the pub rather than, you know, bother voting, so the chances of Labour winning that vote were nil
Click to expand...
It wasn't a motion for an election it was a new Bill introduced by Johnson to get round the fixed term parliament act by amending the legislation to circumvent the need for a two thirds majority. If Labour had been whipped to vote against it then the House of Lords would have been pretty much obliged to vote it down as it circumvented the existing law. But because Labour didn't oppose it they couldn't do that.
 
PowerSpurs said:
It wasn't a motion for an election it was a new Bill introduced by Johnson to get round the fixed term parliament act by amending the legislation to circumvent the need for a two thirds majority. If Labour had been whipped to vote against it then the House of Lords would have been pretty much obliged to vote it down as it circumvented the existing law. But because Labour didn't oppose it they couldn't do that.
Click to expand...
The sheer volume of abstensions from the Lib Dems, SNP and TICGFCHCILC meant that, even if Labour did whip every single one of their MPs to vote against it, it still would have carried
SpursDisciple said:
Or perhaps they just want Labour to actually propose something different, something radical. Corbyn was very popular in the run up to the last but one election but was undermined from within. The centrists want loyalty but showed none. Labour is de facto 2 parties now and each cannot stand the other.
Click to expand...
This is the issue that's most aggravating: the Progress loyalists spent five years undermining Corbyn at every turn, yet are demanding unquestioning loyalty when one of theirs is in charge

Let's be blunt here: when did you ever see Corbyn or McDonnell running to the press to undermine Tony Blair or Gordon Brown between 1997-2010? You didn't, but you sure as hell could set your watches to someone from the Progress or Labour First factions popping up to vomit bile whenever Corbyn started rising in the polls
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...
I assume her point is that she'd like to hear what the officers involved actually said, as I would too.
Anyone that posts heavily edited clips is likely to face criticism and scrutiny, regardless of the facts of the situation.
It looks dishonest and casts doubt on any point that they're trying to make.

I can't stand Hartley-Brewer and the police definitely stop non-white people disproportionately, but posting the whole clip makes sense.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
I assume her point is that she'd like to hear what the officers involved actually said, as I would too.
Anyone that posts heavily edited clips is likely to face criticism and scrutiny, regardless of the facts of the situation.
It looks dishonest and casts doubt on any point that they're trying to make.

I can't stand Hartley-Brewer and the police definitely stop non-white people disproportionately, but posting the whole clip makes sense.
Click to expand...
The obvious counterpoint is...well, since it;s too hot to type long-assed posts, I'll just post a screengrab of what she's most likely doing
You must log in or register to see images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back