The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
Getting elected is the be all and end all in politics. Only in power can a party implement policies. All the opposition can do is make a lot of noise and hope some of that noise makes a difference.Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:10 pm Some of the analysis on here is beyond myopic. Electibility is not the be all and end all. If that's all that matters why not lobby within the Tory party for soft Right policies, that party much more electable. What matters is what you're trying to achieve.
If your aim is to get out of a sinking boat and onto the lifeboats but can't convince the other moron passengers that that is the best coarse of action then agreeing to sing 'Abide with me' while we sink instead of 'Do the Locomotion' isn't much of a victory. Lefties like me will not support ANY party that throws the vulnerable or marginalised under the bus. The Labour Right specialise in doing just that. If the zeitgeist is against ethnic minorities then they wring their little hands and say "Well, we'd like to stand up for them but the public want them sent packing. Ya, know safe, electable, moderate politics,". If the zeitgeist is against 'benefit scroungers' then regardless of the actual facts of the matter or the human damage that will be done the Labour Right will be out there promising the Great British public (i.e - the wavering Tory vote) that Labour can be trusted to teach the lay-abouts a lesson. Its disgusting and I want no part of it. A red rosette ain't enough I'm affraid. You've actually got to stand for what I believe in if you want my vote. Yes, not supporting Labour is a pretty radical stance and I've never not voted Labour before but there comes a point when you have to take a stand. I've pinched my nose whilst voting Labour my entire life, yes even under Corbyn, but there comes a point when you have to say enough is enough. People like Rachel Reeves and Nick Thomas-Symonds have no business being in the Labour party. On every possible policy decision they are natural wet Conservatives.
Its also extremely telling that not one Brexit supporting MP has survived the cull. All of the northern Labour MP's who stuck by their Brexit voting constituents have been binned and replaced with die-hard remainers, which sends a great message to the heartlands that Labour lost.
What really matters is not the number of members they lose but how many voters they gain. Labour won’t get into power by increasing membership, just their share of the vote. Good luck Starmer. I hope the rebirth of Labour is underway.Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:17 am Be interesting to see how many members Labour lose over the next few months.
I'd imagine a fair few form the tankie wing will return to SWP etc once more.
Then there'll be a large number of people like me who only joined to vote for the blairites
Except Lisa Nandy.Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:10 pm Some of the analysis on here is beyond myopic. Electibility is not the be all and end all. If that's all that matters why not lobby within the Tory party for soft Right policies, that party much more electable. What matters is what you're trying to achieve.
If your aim is to get out of a sinking boat and onto the lifeboats but can't convince the other moron passengers that that is the best coarse of action then agreeing to sing 'Abide with me' while we sink instead of 'Do the Locomotion' isn't much of a victory. Lefties like me will not support ANY party that throws the vulnerable or marginalised under the bus. The Labour Right specialise in doing just that. If the zeitgeist is against ethnic minorities then they wring their little hands and say "Well, we'd like to stand up for them but the public want them sent packing. Ya, know safe, electable, moderate politics,". If the zeitgeist is against 'benefit scroungers' then regardless of the actual facts of the matter or the human damage that will be done the Labour Right will be out there promising the Great British public (i.e - the wavering Tory vote) that Labour can be trusted to teach the lay-abouts a lesson. Its disgusting and I want no part of it. A red rosette ain't enough I'm affraid. You've actually got to stand for what I believe in if you want my vote. Yes, not supporting Labour is a pretty radical stance and I've never not voted Labour before but there comes a point when you have to take a stand. I've pinched my nose whilst voting Labour my entire life, yes even under Corbyn, but there comes a point when you have to say enough is enough. People like Rachel Reeves and Nick Thomas-Symonds have no business being in the Labour party. On every possible policy decision they are natural wet Conservatives.
Its also extremely telling that not one Brexit supporting MP has survived the cull. All of the northern Labour MP's who stuck by their Brexit voting constituents have been binned and replaced with die-hard remainers, which sends a great message to the heartlands that Labour lost.
A Tankie is someone who traces their political heritage to those members of the Communist International who supported the Soviet Union in crushing the Hungarian revolution and latterly the Prague Spring. The SWP are heterodox Trotskyists and outspoken opponents of the Communist International, and the Soviet Union in particular, therefore they are the opposite of Tankies. Don't throw around terms you don't understand.Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:17 am Be interesting to see how many members Labour lose over the next few months.
I'd imagine a fair few form the tankie wing will return to SWP etc once more.
Then there'll be a large number of people like me who only joined to vote for the blairites
Thanks for the lesson in fringe left etymology. I have only ever seen it used in a generic way akin to Loony Left, a more all-encompassing termEat The Rich wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:43 amA Tankie is someone who traces their political heritage to those members of the Communist International who supported the Soviet Union in crushing the Hungarian revolution and latterly the Prague Spring. The SWP are heterodox Trotskyists and outspoken opponents of the Communist International, and the Soviet Union in particular, therefore they are the opposite of Tankies. Don't throw around terms you don't understand.Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:17 am Be interesting to see how many members Labour lose over the next few months.
I'd imagine a fair few form the tankie wing will return to SWP etc once more.
Then there'll be a large number of people like me who only joined to vote for the blairites
There's also no evidence of widespread far-left infiltration. Even if there had been you'd be talking about, what, 6000 or so committed revolutionaries. If I had to put a figure on it I'd say less than 500 people moved from a far-left sect to Labour and we know from party reports that the vast majority of them either failed in their application or were promptly suspended and then banned when their previous affiliations were discovered.
The Corbynites within the party are basically the traditional left who left during the Kinnock and Blair years returning. They may leave again because it looks like the party will be returning to "centrism" both in terms of politics and structure. We can already see that moves are afoot to disempower the membership and return all power to the leaders office. The Inner-party democracy drive is all but dead. The Mandelsons and Campbell's of this world are back in power.
I don't know if any empirical data exists on the age demographics of the post 2015 membership but from anecdotal reports the new intake were actual skewed towards middle age with a at least a sizeable minority being made up of former and lapsed members. The relative youth of the membership seems to have been something of a myth although there's no doubt that Labour under Corbyn appealed to the young in a way that previous Labour iterations had not.Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:54 amThanks for the lesson in fringe left etymology. I have only ever seen it used in a generic way akin to Loony Left, a more all-encompassing termEat The Rich wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:43 amA Tankie is someone who traces their political heritage to those members of the Communist International who supported the Soviet Union in crushing the Hungarian revolution and latterly the Prague Spring. The SWP are heterodox Trotskyists and outspoken opponents of the Communist International, and the Soviet Union in particular, therefore they are the opposite of Tankies. Don't throw around terms you don't understand.Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:17 am Be interesting to see how many members Labour lose over the next few months.
I'd imagine a fair few form the tankie wing will return to SWP etc once more.
Then there'll be a large number of people like me who only joined to vote for the blairites
There's also no evidence of widespread far-left infiltration. Even if there had been you'd be talking about, what, 6000 or so committed revolutionaries. If I had to put a figure on it I'd say less than 500 people moved from a far-left sect to Labour and we know from party reports that the vast majority of them either failed in their application or were promptly suspended and then banned when their previous affiliations were discovered.
The Corbynites within the party are basically the traditional left who left during the Kinnock and Blair years returning. They may leave again because it looks like the party will be returning to "centrism" both in terms of politics and structure. We can already see that moves are afoot to disempower the membership and return all power to the leaders office. The Inner-party democracy drive is all but dead. The Mandelsons and Campbell's of this world are back in power.
With regards to the last paragraph, what percentage of the increase in membership post 2015 do you think are former members who left the party between 1983 and 2007? Given the conventional wisdom (that may be wrong) is that it has been driven in large part by younger members
Labour had a Brexit-supporting MP as leader for 5 years to be fair. Didn’t do them much good though.Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:10 pmIts also extremely telling that not one Brexit supporting MP has survived the cull. All of the northern Labour MP's who stuck by their Brexit voting constituents have been binned and replaced with die-hard remainers, which sends a great message to the heartlands that Labour lost.
So two landslides and 13 years of power?ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:39 pm The more I see and hear of Starmer, the more I dislike him. He started with a fawning letter to the Board of Deputies, which I found truly pathetic .
Anyone should be able to criticize Israel..... It's an apartheid state, that uses brutality against the Palestinians .
It's New Labour all over again
Look, this isn't difficult. Try to follow...Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:18 pmSo two landslides and 13 years of power?ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:39 pm The more I see and hear of Starmer, the more I dislike him. He started with a fawning letter to the Board of Deputies, which I found truly pathetic .
Anyone should be able to criticize Israel..... It's an apartheid state, that uses brutality against the Palestinians .
It's New Labour all over again
How exciting
If you don’t have power then all the content in the world doesn’t matter a jot.Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:58 pmLook, this isn't difficult. Try to follow...Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:18 pmSo two landslides and 13 years of power?ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:39 pm The more I see and hear of Starmer, the more I dislike him. He started with a fawning letter to the Board of Deputies, which I found truly pathetic .
Anyone should be able to criticize Israel..... It's an apartheid state, that uses brutality against the Palestinians .
It's New Labour all over again
How exciting
Power in of itself is not a good. The Tories are excellent at having power so it would make sense to support them, right? No. Why not? Because content is what matters. The content of Blairism is poison. It might taste a little nicer than the Tory poison but they're both going to kill you.
Why don't you go to Israel and protest? Normal people here don't care.ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:39 pm The more I see and hear of Starmer, the more I dislike him. He started with a fawning letter to the Board of Deputies, which I found truly pathetic .
Anyone should be able to criticize Israel..... It's an apartheid state, that uses brutality against the Palestinians .
It's New Labour all over again
RedO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:24 am Look at his record indeed. 10 years of aggressive foreign policy and illegal wars. 10 years of deregulation that resulted in the financial crisis of 2007/08. 10 years of PFI that the NHS is still paying for. 10 years of bringing in tuition fees that leaves the young with a mountain of debt. 10 years of rising inequality. And so on and so on.
No thanks.
Maybe to you mate, personally I think you're just talking hyperbolic crap.Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:58 pmLook, this isn't difficult. Try to follow...Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:18 pmSo two landslides and 13 years of power?ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:39 pm The more I see and hear of Starmer, the more I dislike him. He started with a fawning letter to the Board of Deputies, which I found truly pathetic .
Anyone should be able to criticize Israel..... It's an apartheid state, that uses brutality against the Palestinians .
It's New Labour all over again
How exciting
Power in of itself is not a good. The Tories are excellent at having power so it would make sense to support them, right? No. Why not? Because content is what matters. The content of Blairism is poison. It might taste a little nicer than the Tory poison but they're both going to kill you.
It’s been made pretty clear that Blair and Brown were to blame for the the financial crisis. They even left a note saying they’d spunked all the money up the wall, or words to that effect.Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:01 am You prefer Tories then?
Thought labour weren't to blame for the financial crisis?