Jump to content

What is the point of Labour ?


pawpar

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Hilarious how Labour are so desperate to be loved by Tory voters that they too blame absolutely everything on Jeremy Corbyn.

They stand for nothing but pathetically trying to be popular, and so will stand against anything they think the media doesn’t like - even themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/01/2023 at 17:07, Boo Khaki said:

Hilarious how Labour are so desperate to be loved by Tory voters that they too blame absolutely everything on Jeremy Corbyn.

That point hadn't passed me by either. It's just desperate play from the Blairite's of the party, who have now taken over it once again, to get themselves into power. They have smeared Corbyn just as much, if not more, than the Right Wing press and Tory party.

Edited by BB_Bino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

It would be interesting to hear what "modern" Labour's stance is on Israel's new far-right Government, elected by the "good people" of Israel. 

Labour friends of Israel ,which Liz Kendall is part of, is more interested in Iran. 

Edited by MazzyStar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

It's already Corbyn and his supporters fault if they don't win the next GE, apparently -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64248136

Incredibly skewed headline from the BBC.  I for one am shocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Keir joining with the Tories saying that the Scottish parliament got the gender identity law wrong. On the day a former chancellor is having to repay millions in tax it seems like a good day to shoe the Tories rather than seeming out of touch and anti democratic. His advisors clearly have the political acuity of a soup spoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit odd to hear him talking like that when his own party voted broadly in favour of the bill and have been enthusiastic advocates for it throughout, but probably not surprising considering it's perfectly in keeping with all the cosying up to right-wingers, gammons, Mail/Express reading types, and bigots he's been doing lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

It's a bit odd to hear him talking like that when his own party voted broadly in favour of the bill and have been enthusiastic advocates for it throughout, but probably not surprising considering it's perfectly in keeping with all the cosying up to right-wingers, gammons, Mail/Express reading types, and bigots he's been doing lately.

It's almost as if he's one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

It's almost as if he's one of them.

Well aye, but aside from that, we have the Labour Party on one hand voting for a bill they believe to be entirely within the competence of the SG, and on the other hand, the Labour Party contending that it is not. You'd be mistaken for thinking that the objections to this stemming from London are based in nothing but a need to pander to culture war shite. After all, the EA applies UK wide, so if this bill somehow affects English people despite being a Scots bill, then it must also have the exact same effect on Scots people, yet the Scots Parliament are confident it does not.

The power to resolve their strawman gripes, if they were in actual fact legitimate, lies with London in any case. There are three routes they could take to resolving their own points, none of which necessitate striking a bill arrived at by a democratically elected Scots Parliament, yet they seem hellbent on taking that nuclear option rather than any that would not precipitate a court battle and constitutional crisis. I can only imagine that's because 1. the bill has SNP backing so therefore it is a bad thing by default, and 2. as I keep saying, Culture Wars and IDpol is the only ground remaining that the Tories can fight an electoral battle on, so this is the start of it.

What would be interesting is if we did end up with a ruling that clarifies for us exactly where this supposed transgression lies, because then it would be entirely within the scope of the SG to rework the bill and submit it in a compliant format. There should be no requirement to have to do this, but I would hope they do, because it would really put the Tories under the microscope in terms of exactly why they are objecting to this, and their reaction would be enormously telling. In reality, I suspect that what would happen is we'd just have a ridiculous situation whereby Westminster would refuse to address the shortcomings in the EA, because leaving it in a broken and contradictory state would pre-emptively prevent any progress on Gender-related freedoms, and that would be hugely politically expedient for the Tories at least. I'm not sure Labour could get away with it for long though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do Labour want to get involved in a culture wars battle to win over a few voters in stead of working hard to get people who don't vote out to vote for Labour, in terms of % required to win an election you would need a far smaller percentage of the disenfranchised to win an election than convince bigots that your party is like them.

 

As for Sir Keirs actual reservations I'd argue having a child at 16 is far more life changing than changing gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 year olds signing up for the Army are forced to stay for 6 years if they don't bow out in their first 6 months, and have to go to whatever warzone they're ordered to. But they're mature enough for that it seems. The only other states that I can find who recruit so young are Pakistan and Zambia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 101 said:

Why do Labour want to get involved in a culture wars battle to win over a few voters in stead of working hard to get people who don't vote out to vote for Labour, in terms of % required to win an election you would need a far smaller percentage of the disenfranchised to win an election than convince bigots that your party is like them.

 

As for Sir Keirs actual reservations I'd argue having a child at 16 is far more life changing than changing gender.

It seems ridiculous, but the fact is that since the Brexit referendum, that, and every GE have been fought on Trumpian 'them or us' grounds by the Tories. Labour have failed to prevent Tory governments by trying to win on policy, so it's self-evident they're following them down the rabbit-hole in an attempt to get themselves elected. This has the unfortunate consequence of letting the Tories choose the battles, so if the Tories decide they are going to completely overblow gender issues and turn that into a 'them or us' electoral battleground, Labour will just join in rather than pointing out what a load of hysterical, manufactured nonsense it is, and focussing on more pertinent issues like the NHS and the Tories economic intransigence.

See what's happened with immigration, particularly the 'small boats' saga. It's nowhere near the calamity for the UK the Tories are pretending it is, but they'll use terms like 'invasion' and 'illegal' to stoke it up into a far bigger shitstorm than it is in reality, then pander to the neuroses they have created in the minds of some of the electorate in order to garner their votes.

Trump doesn't give a f**k about truth, or actual politics, or governing for the whole, it's simply about polarising people enough that there is one more of 'us' than them, and poisoning the narrative to the point where people who could potentially rally against you just tune out. That's exactly what this post-Cameron Tory party is all about, and Labour are jumping on the bandwagon because they can't beat them 'conventionally' because they can't control the narrative thanks to the media being entirely in the pocket of the Conservative party. It just means that ultimately you end up with an absolute disgrace of a Tory party, and a Labour party that is much the same but slightly watered down. The loonies, the ignorant, the bigots, and the ruthlessly self-interested will vote Tory, but why would more moderate people vote Labour when Labour is standing for all the same things that put them right off the Tory party, only they have a red banner on their policy documents rather than blue?

So there you have it. A party that can win landslides because they pander to 35% of people who either share the same revolting values they do, or they are too ignorant to realise what the Tories are really about and think the Tories represent them, versus a party that can't really siphon much of that demographic away because they are not vile enough, yet are simultaneously too vile themselves for moderates to vote for. Who do you think is winning that battle? It's a disgrace that any party or person can form a landslide government on such a pathetic mandate, especially once they immediately set about throwing the bulk of the country under the bus to pander to a few once they are in power, but they don't give a shit because it's all about power for power's sake so they can enact their asset-stripping, so the polarisation suits them to a tee.

Edited by Boo Khaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...