Labour Watch

[Dunners]

In Manchester's Chinatown last night, I found myself dining opposite Wes "man of the people" Streeting. He was heartened to hear how popular he is on the message board.

[CEB]

lol

[Jeremy Bentham]

comeonyouos:- Your stance is revealing you as a closet Tory. If you think that the British Public care more about Palestinians than the the cost of living you are delusionial. Maybe you are a WUM. But I refer you to your fellow Maoist Max Goldstein ( or whatever ). When Arthur Scargill formed a Left Wing Socialist Party, it set the Country ablaze with enthusiasm didn't it? Or the the was Jezza's runaway Election Performance. You win Elections in the UK by being moderate. Try not to overspend, gain confidences. The ease your way to a more left wing agenda. Hope Maoists etc don't upset the apple cart. Just look in the past. You have to be pragmatic to be successful. Or you're gonna end up with another Tory Government.

You sound naive.

[faldO]

Fascinating article in today's Guardian about "Sky pundit and Labour party member" Gary Neville, who felt we were "in real danger" during Boris Johnson's period as PM:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... eal-danger

I particularly like the way he picks and chooses which principles apply to him, and which bits he can ignore:

"I fly a lot and my household owns two cars, so I wouldn’t call myself an environmentalist. Instead, I try to make the best choices possible." - wonder what Just Stop Oil think about that?

On going the Qatar World Cup - "I wasn't the only pundit there...I’ve worked for Middle Eastern TV for 20 years and I’m not going to stop" - this in spite of saying to the BBC only a few days ago that the transfer of Premier League players to Saudi Arabia should be paused for "integrity reasons". Fine for him to take the cash but not others.

He says he won't run for office because "I'd have to watch what I say" - he should include "what I do" as well.

A true man of the people and champagne socialist.

[CEB]

Yes, the Labour Party should restrict its membership to include only those with absolute consistency in their ethics and choices, because reasons.

[Max B Gold]

Fascinating article in today's Guardian about "Sky pundit and Labour party member" Gary Neville, who felt we were "in real danger" during Boris Johnson's period as PM:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... eal-danger

I particularly like the way he picks and chooses which principles apply to him, and which bits he can ignore:

"I fly a lot and my household owns two cars, so I wouldn’t call myself an environmentalist. Instead, I try to make the best choices possible." - wonder what Just Stop Oil think about that?

On going the Qatar World Cup - "I wasn't the only pundit there...I’ve worked for Middle Eastern TV for 20 years and I’m not going to stop" - this in spite of saying to the BBC only a few days ago that the transfer of Premier League players to Saudi Arabia should be paused for "integrity reasons". Fine for him to take the cash but not others.

He says he won't run for office because "I'd have to watch what I say" - he should include "what I do" as well.

A true man of the people and champagne socialist.

Like Starmer, Streeting, Reeves etc, etc there's nothing socialist about Neville. I believe you have incorrectly categorised him. Please reconsider the usefulness of your insult for future posts.

[faldO]

Fascinating article in today's Guardian about "Sky pundit and Labour party member" Gary Neville, who felt we were "in real danger" during Boris Johnson's period as PM:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... eal-danger

...

A true man of the people and champagne socialist.

I believe you have incorrectly categorised him. Please reconsider the usefulness of your insult for future posts.

Ordinarily I would take your advice, as you are not very often wrong in these matters, but it was not me who categorised the Neville as a "champagne socialist" but the boy himself:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gary ... -w870kqwl9

In mitgation though, I note that you only believed it, and that you were uncertain of the FACTS.

You were right about Starmer, Streeting, Reeves etc though, I'll give you that.

[Max B Gold]

Labour Party Membership:

Under Corbyn - 600,000
Under Starmer - 150,000

450,000 have gone.

[StillSpike]

Labour Party Membership:

Under Corbyn - 600,000
Under Starmer - 150,000

450,000 have gone.

Maybe it's 550,000 gone, and 100,000 come in from somewhere

[Max B Gold]

Labour Party Membership:

Under Corbyn - 600,000
Under Starmer - 150,000

450,000 have gone.

Maybe it's 550,000 gone, and 100,000 come in from somewhere

Yeah probably the Tory Party.

[FrankOFile]

Labour Party Membership:

Under Corbyn - 600,000
Under Starmer - 150,000

450,000 have gone.

Gone where? Did they actually even vote for Corbyn in 2019?
If so, they must have been the only ones.

Time for this obsession for a failure to end.

[Max B Gold]

Labour Party Membership:

Under Corbyn - 600,000
Under Starmer - 150,000

450,000 have gone.

Gone where? Did they actually even vote for Corbyn in 2019?
If so, they must have been the only ones.

Time for this obsession for a failure to end.

So there's not an issue losing 450,000 members? OKs.

[Max Fowler]

Labour Party Membership:

Under Corbyn - 600,000
Under Starmer - 150,000

450,000 have gone.

Gone where? Did they actually even vote for Corbyn in 2019?
If so, they must have been the only ones.

Time for this obsession for a failure to end.

Presumably they did vote for Corbyn, along with 10 million other voters.

[Proposition Joe]

Labour Party Membership:

Under Corbyn - 600,000
Under Starmer - 150,000

450,000 have gone.

Gone where? Did they actually even vote for Corbyn in 2019?
If so, they must have been the only ones.

Time for this obsession for a failure to end.

Only 450,000 people voted Labour in 2019? I don't think that's right. Got a link to that data?

[ComeOnYouOs]

Labour got just under 10.3 million votes in 2019

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50779901

[CEB]

I mean, whether one sees it as a good thing or a bad thing, the massive increase in membership was due to a lot of people trying to support Corbyn and shore up his position against those who wanted him out.
Whichever way you cut it, a very large factor in the drop in membership after Corbyn is simply that that group of people were there for Corbyn or if not him, the favoured left wing successor. Both sides of the equation are “Corbyn uniquely inspired a lot of people who weren’t invested in party politics to invest in him”

[Max B Gold]

I mean, whether one sees it as a good thing or a bad thing, the massive increase in membership was due to a lot of people trying to support Corbyn and shore up his position against those who wanted him out.
Whichever way you cut it, a very large factor in the drop in membership after Corbyn is simply that that group of people were there for Corbyn or if not him, the favoured left wing successor. Both sides of the equation are “Corbyn uniquely inspired a lot of people who weren’t invested in party politics to invest in him”

What really happened was that Corbyn won the leadership because LP members recognised the vacuous politics of the Neo liberal Labour right.

Many flocked to the LP believing that his mild social democratic policies were exactly what the country needed and a wider social movement was established.

Some took the cult of the leader too far but fundamentally the English radical tradition coalesced around the movement he led.

Yes it was about a leader but more importantly it was about a mass membership party that the forces of neo liberal reaction fought tooth and nail to smash and they continue to do so. On this occasion the cross party alliance to protect capitalism was a stronger force than the Labour "Left".

[Max Fowler]

This.

For the majority of us left of centre, it wasn't about the man, it was about the 'mild social democratic policies' he would have implemented.

[CEB]

“Some took the cult of the leader too far but fundamentally the English radical tradition coalesced around the movement he led.”

Yep, we agree. Some took the cult too far, meanwhile the majority of the new membership was overwhelmingly either radicals coalescing around a movement that (meant neutrally here) had no interest in the Labour Party beyond being a vehicle for their set of beliefs, so were always likely to fall away after Corbyn’s leadership ended, or were optimistic young people who really did believe that they were going to get into power, and who became very disillusioned once that didn’t happen.

I’m not saying that that reflects badly on them. I’m just saying that it’s a bit like “well, yeah” when someone posts up that numbers dropped after Starmer became leader.

I think there’s a bit of understating quite how person/personality led it was, considering the amount of people who will not hear a word said against Corbyn despite the many and various iffy aspects of his life and politics (even saying that will probably provoke incredulity - “what iffy politics are they, then?”

[Max Fowler]

meanwhile the majority of the new membership was overwhelmingly radicals

Any links to support that assertion?

[CEB]

meanwhile the majority of the new membership was overwhelmingly radicals

Any links to support that assertion?

No, because I corrected it straight away because I was clumsily agreeing with the gist of one of Max’s assertions rather than articulating what I actually think. I’ve corrected it now to be more representative of what I think

[Dunners]

In a fantasy parallel universe, had he emerged at the same time as a switch to a PR electoral system, he could have done well. But under FPTP, 600K members and 10.3 million votes does not necessarily translate into actual power. Especially when they're mainly concentrated in constituencies that were already likely to vote Labour. The cross-party alliance to maintain the status quo just made the eventual defeat even worse (and possibly more permanent in terms of Westminster politics) than it would otherwise have been.

[Long slender neck]

It was a bunch of far left students trying to take over the Labour party

[Max Fowler]

meanwhile the majority of the new membership was overwhelmingly radicals

Any links to support that assertion?

No, because I corrected it straight away because I was clumsily agreeing with the gist of one of Max’s assertions rather than articulating what I actually think. I’ve corrected it now to be more representative of what I think

Any links to support either of those assertions?

[Max Fowler]

It was a bunch of far left students trying to take over the Labour party

Yes, that and old trots.