Labour Watch

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

It’s amazing how most people are so terrified of a little dose of healthy socialism.

75 years ago, we brought in a universal, free at the point of service, healthcare system. Just imagine that. Nowadays even the suggestion of a universal, free at the point of service broadband provision, absolutely tiny in comparison to the NHS, and people’s tiny minds explode.

[Thor]

labour did, but wasn't it a tory proposal in the first place?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Irrelevant to my point, but thanks.

[Dohnut]

I see that the Labour Party is having to pay out £370k to the 7 whistleblowers (let that sink in for a min) in settlement of the recent court case. Now another 42 cases have been logged which potentially could bankrupt the party as the bill could run to millions.

A party which has a fine tradition of defending the weak and the poor and stands against racism being brought to its knees fighting against the very thing it used to beleive in and fight against.

Shame on Labour. An absolute disgrace of a party.
[/quote
More misinformation ....I know Thor you are not a malicious man, but your facts are wrong.
The legal team representing the Labour Party told the leadership, they thought they had an excellent chance of winning the case, yet despite this legal advice, Starmer decided to pay out this money.
This is amazing, absolutely unbelievable.
So why did he pay out these millions when he didnt have to?
Well your guess is as good as mine, but my gut feeling is, by not paying, if the legal team were right, then it makes Corbyn right all along, and there was no way starmer was having that.
Well thats speculation on my part, but the advice not to pay, from the legal team isnt speculation
Look it up Thor, its unbelievable.
glad its not my members subs they are using

Legal teams always think they have a good case but 50% of the time they lose. Many picking up additional costs in the process. I thought Starmer was ideally placed to make a judgement. Both from a legal and moral perspective.

[ComeOnYouOs]

I see that the Labour Party is having to pay out £370k to the 7 whistleblowers (let that sink in for a min) in settlement of the recent court case. Now another 42 cases have been logged which potentially could bankrupt the party as the bill could run to millions.

A party which has a fine tradition of defending the weak and the poor and stands against racism being brought to its knees fighting against the very thing it used to beleive in and fight against.

Shame on Labour. An absolute disgrace of a party.
[/quote
More misinformation ....I know Thor you are not a malicious man, but your facts are wrong.
The legal team representing the Labour Party told the leadership, they thought they had an excellent chance of winning the case, yet despite this legal advice, Starmer decided to pay out this money.
This is amazing, absolutely unbelievable.
So why did he pay out these millions when he didnt have to?
Well your guess is as good as mine, but my gut feeling is, by not paying, if the legal team were right, then it makes Corbyn right all along, and there was no way starmer was having that.
Well thats speculation on my part, but the advice not to pay, from the legal team isnt speculation
Look it up Thor, its unbelievable.
glad its not my members subs they are using

Legal teams always think they have a good case but 50% of the time they lose. Many picking up additional costs in the process. I thought Starmer was ideally placed to make a judgement. Both from a legal and moral perspective.

Legal teams often think they are in a winning position, because perhaps they are actually in a winning position !
Think you might be missing the point. as i said in my earlier post, If the Labour party would have won the case, then it proves Corbyn right.
At the moment, Starmer is doing everything he can, to eradicate all traces of the left from Labour, all the old regime.
for him to admit, Corbyn was right, seriously damages his current position, so by paying out this money, he now gives the impression they ( Corbyn) would have lost.
Corbyn was right when he said it was a political decision, and not a legal one. That is obvious as anything can be

[Thor]

So coyos starmer is playing politics within his own party to the detriment of the previous leader. Sounds like a nice chap doesn't he?

[Dohnut]

Legal teams always think they have a good case but 50% of the time they lose. Many picking up additional costs in the process. I thought Starmer was ideally placed to make a judgement. Both from a legal and moral perspective.

Legal teams often think they are in a winning position, because perhaps they are actually in a winning position !
Think you might be missing the point. as i said in my earlier post, If the Labour party would have won the case, then it proves Corbyn right.
At the moment, Starmer is doing everything he can, to eradicate all traces of the left from Labour, all the old regime.
for him to admit, Corbyn was right, seriously damages his current position, so by paying out this money, he now gives the impression they ( Corbyn) would have lost.
Corbyn was right when he said it was a political decision, and not a legal one. That is obvious as anything can be

The vast majority of decisions taken by political parties are political. It’s what they do. A political party playing politics, whatever next!

Starmer has nothing to fear from Corbyn, whether he was right or wrong. Corbyn is history. Starmer has little to worry about on the election front either, not a tough act to follow there.

As for moving away from Corbynism. I make him correct. The Labour Party is in a sorry state and in need of a massive shake up. Starmer is doing just that. Time will tell if he improves the party fortunes but let’s face it, it could hardly get worse.

You never know, Starmer May even make Labour electable in the future, something Corbyn would never do.

As for the legal stuff, those opposing Labour will also have a legal team who are probably sure of their strong case too. One set of lawyers will win, the other set will lose. But the fall out for the party either way is likely to be damaging, raking up all the old stuff. A media feeding frenzy. Even if Corbyn were to win, the Labour Party will be the loser. Starmer is a smart cookie, it’s not about Corbyn but the party. Starmer is right.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

It’s not Corbynism dohy.

It’s just a smattering of good old fashioned socialism, that’s all.

I get why people are trying to make it sound ‘cultish’, of course, but don’t be silly. It was never about one man. It’s about his policies.

If we knew what Sirkiers were, maybe the people who were behind Jezza would get behind him too.

[Dohnut]

It’s not Corbynism dohy.

It’s just a smattering of good old fashioned socialism, that’s all.

I get why people are trying to make it sound ‘cultish’, of course, but don’t be silly. It was never about one man. It’s about his policies.

If we knew what Sirkiers were, maybe the people who were behind Jezza would get behind him too.

I sense RedO a degree of anti Starmer rhetoric from the pro Corbyn people. All too ready to criticise him. Which is grossly unfair. He has inherited a difficult situation and as leader must develop the party as he sees it. Time will tell if he is right. Personally I believe his brand of socialism provides the greatest opportunity for a Labour Government since Blair.

It is far too early to criticise his lack of policies. Corbynism is alive and kicking even though the man has gone. Time to unite behind Starmer. The real opposition is not Starmer.

[Mikero]

"labour did, but wasn't it a tory proposal in the first place?"

Not many people would know the answer to that as a Tory government had that period taken out of the History syllabus for state schools.

Mikero

[NuneatonO's]

labour did, but wasn't it a tory proposal in the first place?

Copied from another thread and repeated here, for your ongoing education:

Willink's plan referred of a "publicly organised" rather than a "publicly provided" service; whereas Labour's plan brought hospitals into full national ownership.

Here's a background of Willink's paper proving that very point:
https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/n ... hite-paper

The fact remains that it was a Socialist British Labour Party that built and introduced the NHS.
https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/e ... th-service

Moreover, remind me again - how many times did Churchill's Tory Party vote AGAINST the NHS being introduced?

Oh yes - TWENTY ONE!

Who was one of the Tory M.P.'s who voted against Nye Bevan's NHS Plans - Henry Willink!

The Conservatives never were “the party of the NHS”, and history proves it:
https://keepournhspublic.com/the-conser ... proves-it/

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Personally I believe his brand of socialism

[HeyO]

Dohnut’s a convert?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

[Dohnut]

Dohnut’s a convert?

Not at all, I’ve voted Labour more than Conservative over the years. Just in recent times Labour has become a joke.

[Dohnut]

You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Not at all, I’ve voted Labour more than Conservative over the years..

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

What is pointless is a tory-lite Labour government.

As I said above, you know they've got the wrong man in charge when the tories are fawning all over him.

[PoliticOs]

You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

During your career in the boardrooms, would you have put forward an MD candidate because they were most popular even if you didn't like how they worked or their understanding of the company or their ethics, over someone you thought was much better? If the company had been set up with a specific idea or identity, would you want to work within that identity and try to convince the public to buy your product or would you prefer to abandon your principles to be popular?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

"The desire here, therefore, is not for justice, equality under the law or due process, but eradicating an entire politics – starting with its most publicly visible figure."

https://novaramedia.com/2020/07/28/the- ... Qu9TQ6eS6w

[Dohnut]

You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

What is pointless is a tory-lite Labour government.

As I said above, you know they've got the wrong man in charge when the tories are fawning all over him.

Then keep electing a leader who will never get into power. The result of which means a Tory Government. To me that is pointless. And in my opinion there is nothing wrong with a centre-left party. A view that is probably more common than far left almost communist views. Pragmatism.

[Currywurst and Chips]

You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

What is pointless is a tory-lite Labour government.

As I said above, you know they've got the wrong man in charge when the tories are fawning all over him.

Almost like he understands you need to win Tory voters to win a majority

RLB lost (badly) get over it

[Dohnut]

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

What is pointless is a tory-lite Labour government.

As I said above, you know they've got the wrong man in charge when the tories are fawning all over him.

Almost like he understands you need to win Tory voters to win a majority

RLB lost (badly) get over it

It’s clear that to win an election you need to win the range between left of centre and right of centre inclusive. The golden ground. Blair understood that clearly as does Boris. People outside that range often make the most noise but that don’t win elections. So the choice? Win the golden ground or stay in opposition.

[PoliticOs]

Sounds like someone wants proportional representation! (Me too, already).

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Sounds like someone wants proportional representation! (Me too, already).

I’m not so sure he does.