Labour Watch

[Dunners]

Diane Abbott clearly forgetting the result of the election two years later, and the 18 years that followed.

I genuinely think that there's a contingent of the Labour Party who fear the weight of responsibility that comes with being in government. It's just so much easier to snipe from opposition. These people, who hide behind their divisive identity politics, are as much class traitors as scabs crossing picket lines.

[CEB]

I don’t know why we’re dismissing the idea that Labour are saying what they need to say to get into power and may well change tack as they get in power or even closer to power. There’s not a better option than the Labour Party, and while my personal politics are very left wing, I’m baffled that many on the left are still looking for a way to interpret 2019 as “Labour would have won, if not for…”

(I also remember the snotty dismissals and “this’ll help” I got when I argued that Labour giving Johnson the election he wanted in 2019 was suicidal)

[Friend or fart]

When you get Diane Abbott speaking on your behalf, it's time to worry. The voters will soon diss you.

[Mistadobalina]

I do think it’s crazy, even if Tarry was attempting to get himself sacked for the optics, for Starmer to actually sack him, seems like Labour doing the classic thing of interrupting their enemy when they’re making a mistake.

As a front bencher, Tarry knew he had a responsibility to tow the party line. Even if he doesn't agree with it. Especially if he doesn't agree with it.

If he finds he simply cannot follow the party line, then the thing to do is to resign. To choose not to is to openly challenge the authority or the party leader. And in such a situation the leader must sack him or the fallout will be even worse.

Tarry chose to not resign, and instead force Starmer into that position. And he did it at a time when an election is looming on the horizon. Why would he do that?

A Labour led government under Starmer may well be marginally less sh*t than the current one. But after so many years of a Tory government, the left should be wanting to snap that up as there's little evidence they're going to get anything better.

The Unions are doing just fine without the like of Tarry. They're winning support and have skilled orators who can communicate effectively through the mainstream media.

It was a stupid red line to draw, it created an unnecessary confrontation point with a big chunk of the party for very little gain - the Tories are going to paint labour as in the pockets of unions regardless. You can see with Biden what happens when you have a left leader who saps all belief from the party's core support that the party is going to achieve anything substantive to make people's lives better . It becomes an unelectable zombie.

Think Starmer is fundamentally quite a decent bloke who's taken over a basket case and who's response to every issue has been a very basic, unimaginative tack right strategy. Maybe that's enough to eek out an election win, but I'm struggling to see where it takes us from there. Maybe his team have some brilliant ideas on hidden up their sleeves in case they form a government, but he doesn't strike me as an ideas guy and given the scale of issues facing the country, middling managerialism is just going to create room for more right wing loons further down the line.

[CEB]

Leaving aside my own politics - I’m not sure that it makes sense that, in anticipation that Tories will *attempt* to paint Labour as being in the pockets of unions, it’s irrelevant whether Labour gives the Tories an easy way of doing so, or whether they make it harder for them to do so.

[CEB]

Re: where it takes us from there: I think that while the Tory party has lurched from crisis to scandal back to crisis, the idea that Labour is more stable and credible isn’t a bad thing to project during that time. It’s not *enough* for them to be a party that I’d strongly support, but then I’m a lifelong Labour voter.
I’d expect a bit more good stuff in the manifesto eventually, but let’s see.

I really, really don’t see what good the tantrums by Owen Jones will do, or what purpose they serve

[ComeOnYouOs]

This nonsense about Labour being in the pockets of the unions, has been going on for years
Labour IS the political wing of the Trade Unions. It was formed that way around 1900.
I feel that Labour never seems to got back with the Tories are in the pockets of the Billionaires, and Oligarchy, much of their money being extremely 'dodgy'.
We have now had over 40 years of unbridled capitalism, and the left has become cowed. Only now, finally are the unions waking up from their 40 year slumber, and as soon as they do, the predictable ' outrage ' from the right, about holding ' hard working families ' to ransom
The Labour party has to represent the working class, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick etc, because who else is?

[tuffers#1]

This nonsense about Labour being in the pockets of the unions, has been going on for years
Labour IS the political wing of the Trade Unions. It was formed that way around 1900.
I feel that Labour never seems to got back with the Tories are in the pockets of the Billionaires, and Oligarchy, much of their money being extremely 'dodgy'.
We have now had over 40 years of unbridled capitalism, and the left has become cowed. Only now, finally are the unions waking up from their 40 year slumber, and as soon as they do, the predictable ' outrage ' from the right, about holding ' hard working families ' to ransom
The Labour party has to represent the working class, the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick etc, because who else is?

40 years of Capitalism that has people back in poverty , skint , suffering inflation & energy bills at record highs & the world on the brink of another world war . Time to attack T*ry scum on there thread !!

[CEB]

Engaging with the world as it is, it’s in the interests of the working class to

A: have the tories remain in power
B: have a less than ideal Labour Party in power

?

[Long slender neck]

Corbyn fan boys need to get over his historic loss and back Sir Kier.

[Max Fowler]

I don’t know why we’re dismissing the idea that Labour are saying what they need to say to get into power and may well change tack as they get in power or even closer to power. There’s not a better option than the Labour Party, and while my personal politics are very left wing, I’m baffled that many on the left are still looking for a way to interpret 2019 as “Labour would have won, if not for…”

(I also remember the snotty dismissals and “this’ll help” I got when I argued that Labour giving Johnson the election he wanted in 2019 was suicidal)

2017 was the election Labour would have won if not for the right wing of the party.

[CEB]

I know which election was which . 2019 was the election where I was alarmed by how many lefties were totally ignoring those who said “this is madness, we are heading for disaster by fighting an election now, on Johnson’s terms, with this leader, and with these policies”

[Mick McQuaid]

Vote Labour and yout life might be marginally less sh*t could be one of the greatest election slogans of our time.

[tuffers#1]

Vote tory & only the privelaged C*nts are getting anything

[Dunners]

Vote Labour, and we'll apply vaseline first.

Vote Tory, and we'll put sand in the vaseline first.

[CEB]

Vote Labour and yout life might be marginally less sh*t could be one of the greatest election slogans of our time.

It’d be a terrible election slogan, but by definition, a marginally less sh*t life is better than a marginally more sh*t one - I’m totally on board with holding Labour to account, and that absolutely involves pressure to not ignore that which sets them apart from the Tories.
But I also think
1: Owen Jones is out of order there, and is actively being at least as divisive and at least as committed to undermining the leadership as anyone he criticised for doing so in he past
2: we really do need to get the Tories out, and use that as a starting point.

Anyway, I think you need to get over to the trans thread and apologise to the people you were rude to when they suggested that the Tavistock might be a bit iffy, since it’s just been ordered to close down. Unless you’ve just got a refereeing qualification too.

[Mick McQuaid]

Oh, was I so terribly beastly to poor Pammy on there, I do so hope he found a way to get over it. You do know that the closure is part of a plan to increase and improve provision, not any validation of your views on the matter?

[CEB]

Oh, was I so terribly beastly to poor Pammy on there, I do so hope he found a way to get over it. You do know that the closure is part of a plan to increase and improve provision, not any validation of your views on the matter?

Yes, I welcome increased, improved provision. Why on Earth would you think otherwise? It is, however, demonstrably vindication of my views on the matter. You do realise that despite the desperate framing of trans activists, those of us who have been calling for the closure have been demanding increased, improved provision? Are you so utterly one eyed on this that you actually think my position is “lol no support for trans kids now! What a win!”? If so you’re a bigger fool than I thought, and should be ashamed. If you’d read a single word I’ve said on this you’d understand that my entire issue with the Tavistock and Mermaids results from compassion and care for gender non conforming kids who are getting shoddy treatment from idealogues. And that this is based on 20 years of working with vulnerable children - which you know I have actually done, and isn’t bullsh*t trolling to win an argument - At this point, if you actually haven’t taken seriously the objections that were and are being raised - including from whistleblowers within the Tavistock - before assuming your opponents on this don’t just want the best possible care for kids with issues around their sense of self, then you have essentially radicalised yourself into an ideological belief that some kids have the wrong bodies and need hormones and surgery to be their true selves - how progressive of you.

Hilary Cass is, in case you didn’t notice from reading whatever spin you read, recommending that (here’s a novel idea) the new clinics actually set up a way of collecting and analysing data around use of puberty blockers using proper clinical protocols and measuring outcomes into adulthood. She notes that the impact of puberty blockers as used now means it’s impossible to know whether they impact on a young person’s ability to make mature decisions about irreversible changes, or even whether the blockers themselves prevent children from maturing into feeling more comfortable with their bodies.

There will also be a more holistic approach, with CAMHS teams looking into co-morbidities, and moving away from the affirmation approach. You might have spouted complete bullsh*t early on in this thread when talking to people who weren’t knowledgable about this, but not any more.

This excerpt from Cass’s letter seems pretty indisputably to be a validation of my views on the matter, don’t you think?

[CEB]

Btw, it’s not so much that you were “beastly” to Pammy, more that your confidence that of course if clinics are prescribing puberty blockers, they definitely know what they’re doing! - they wouldnt do it without a really good evidence base! turned out to be so wildly off the mark that if you’re not actually prepared to say “ah. He might have had a point there”, then you’re just showing (though admittedly, you’ve already conceded that you won’t change your mind on any aspect of this issue) that it’s not evidence that underpins your takes on this subject.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Oh, was I so terribly beastly to poor Pammy on there, I do so hope he found a way to get over it. You do know that the closure is part of a plan to increase and improve provision, not any validation of your views on the matter?

Rent free still then

[Max Fowler]

Oh, was I so terribly beastly to poor Pammy on there, I do so hope he found a way to get over it. You do know that the closure is part of a plan to increase and improve provision, not any validation of your views on the matter?

Yes, I welcome increased, improved provision. Why on Earth would you think otherwise? It is, however, demonstrably vindication of my views on the matter. You do realise that despite the desperate framing of trans activists, those of us who have been calling for the closure have been demanding increased, improved provision? Are you so utterly one eyed on this that you actually think my position is “lol no support for trans kids now! What a win!”? If so you’re a bigger fool than I thought, and should be ashamed. If you’d read a single word I’ve said on this you’d understand that my entire issue with the Tavistock and Mermaids results from compassion and care for gender non conforming kids who are getting shoddy treatment from idealogues. And that this is based on 20 years of working with vulnerable children - which you know I have actually done, and isn’t bullsh*t trolling to win an argument - At this point, if you actually haven’t taken seriously the objections that were and are being raised - including from whistleblowers within the Tavistock - before assuming your opponents on this don’t just want the best possible care for kids with issues around their sense of self, then you have essentially radicalised yourself into an ideological belief that some kids have the wrong bodies and need hormones and surgery to be their true selves - how progressive of you.

Hilary Cass is, in case you didn’t notice from reading whatever spin you read, recommending that (here’s a novel idea) the new clinics actually set up a way of collecting and analysing data around use of puberty blockers using proper clinical protocols and measuring outcomes into adulthood. She notes that the impact of puberty blockers as used now means it’s impossible to know whether they impact on a young person’s ability to make mature decisions about irreversible changes, or even whether the blockers themselves prevent children from maturing into feeling more comfortable with their bodies.

There will also be a more holistic approach, with CAMHS teams looking into co-morbidities, and moving away from the affirmation approach. You might have spouted complete bullsh*t early on in this thread when talking to people who weren’t knowledgable about this, but not any more.

This excerpt from Cass’s letter seems pretty indisputably to be a validation of my views on the matter, don’t you think?

So, we were talking about lefty infighting and how Labour never seem to be in power …….

[Admin]

Vote Labour and yout life might be marginally less sh*t could be one of the greatest election slogans of our time.

Needs to be shortened to 3 words like Get Brexit Done or Build Back Better / pile bodies high.

Something like Labour’s Less sh*t or Tories? They’re C***’s might swing it.
.

[Max Fowler]

f*** Off Lefties

[tuffers#1]

[faldO]

David Lammy, Shadow Foreign Secretary, has been found to have breached the MPs’ code of conduct by inadvertently failing to register on time 16 different interests, including a number of commercial radio shows and Black History Month speeches.

It's ok thought because, as Gary will soon explain, they're just little breaches involving small amounts of money and not important.

Got to hand it to Lammy, though, for a brilliant excuse as to how it happened:

“During this time, the Leader of the Opposition made a surprise reshuffle of his shadow cabinet on 29 November 2021. I was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary and immediately thrown into urgent briefings on the impending Russia-Ukraine situation which was developing at pace. This was also at the time of increasing coronavirus cases as a result of the Omicron variant which led to workers being encouraged to work from home.

My office was extremely busy dealing with the fallout from the pandemic situation in my constituency of Tottenham. Furthermore, my office manager, who usually has responsibility for such submissions, was on [details redacted] leave. As a result other staff in the office acted up to cover. This meant we were short staffed and extremely busy. This is why the submissions were overlooked and delayed.”