#COVID19 | Page 581 | Vital Football

#COVID19

What about it?

If you think that WhatsApp groups between Tory MPs discussing Theresa May were all smiles and sunshine then I've got some news you might want to sit down for

I don't doubt for one minute the nature of them but they aren't what we are talking about. We are specifically talking about Labour. Why are you willing to accept dark forces at work within the Tory Party but not Labour?
 
What is the motivation to keep talking about this? Honestly?

(DF trigger warning ahead; this post may be over your personal word limit, and you won't agree with it, so best stop reading now)

Corbyn wasn't forced out. He resigned, after two consecutive election defeats in 3 years. That's a generous amount of time. His time wasn't cut short; he is in his 70's anyway. This suggestion of "dark forces" in the media is exactly the arguments used by the right. How can you not see that? You wouldn't even consider a point made by Breitbart or OANN to be a fact, so why would you think the opposite of swarkbox or Canary?

I swear that, for all his accusations, one poster here has said more negative stuff about starmer in six months than I did about Corbyn in 5 years. I at least wasn't posting anti Corbyn memes/ Twitter posts.

It is Starmer's time now. You don't have to like it. You don't have to vote for him. If you want a new left wing party, either shit or get off the pot.

The only current path to a non-tory future is via the Labour party. It is going to be a tough path. Unfortunately, it necessitates picking up millions of voters who don't think like you and don't agree with you. That is, unfortunately, pretty much an indisputable reality. You can go to your Facebook echo chambers and imagine that most people feel like you do about socialism while completely missing that it is very much a minority political ideology in this country.

Labour will win by appealing to the voters they need to, and that cannot be on an outright socialist agenda. This country likes socialist ideas in isolation but doesn't like a socialist programme as a whole. 70 years of election results tell us this. Starmer can offer some socialist policies but that is the best that can be done on an election winning ticket.

Evidence on both sides of the pond shows that the most patriotic party, the one with the most positive vision for the future and the one that offers the most opportunity for people to help themselves (rather than freebies) tends to win. The evidence as I and many interpret it is that working people don't want free handouts, they want opportunities to earn the things they want themselves. They are suspicious of freebies, assuming that the majority go to freeloaders who do sod all.

For the Labour party to win, it needs to distance itself from immensely unpopular figures such as Corbyn and McCluskey. The latter is a particularly vile example; an absolute throwback to arrogant, militant unions who destroyed for generations any chance of socialism thiving in this country. Not until the generations who whose response to the word "socialism" is "unions", "three day week" and "bins not collected" are all dead and past will a genuine socialist programme have a chance.

Mr Starmer's strategy is ruthless but possibly correct. The electorate as a whole absolutely hated Corbyn. He epitomised every suspicion they had about socialism and the left; that it was unpatriotic, even Britain hating, obsessed with spending hard working people's money on people who won't work and on ethnic minorities, interested in the very poor and downtrodden only to the exclusion (and supposed guilt) of everyone else. For many working people in the north, while Corbyn remains in labour there will always be that suspicion about the party.

Removing the whip permanently will allay some of those suspicions. It may lose some left wing votes, but it will almost certainly gain far more votes from the working class right (right and left being barely distinguishable in some ways). The reality is, those working and middle class right would vote Tory otherwise, while the left wing votes labour might lose over Corbyn almost certainly won't.

Morally not the right thing to do perhaps, but politically it is probably the wise, if ruthless, move.

After nearly a week of this on a Covid thread maybe it's time for the Corbyn side to tell us what they actually want to achieve by talking about this ad nauseum?
I know that you have got no time for my political opinions but i will just say this. You are spot on with alot of things in this post. I just dont think that there are enough people in this country who see any personal advantage in there being a Labour government even one with far better credibility than the current crew.Anyone in work with half decent prospects would be very hard to convince that socialism is the way forward for them in my opinion.
 
I don't doubt for one minute the nature of them but they aren't what we are talking about. We are specifically talking about Labour. Why are you willing to accept dark forces at work within the Tory Party but not Labour?
I dont, because I don't see it as dark forces. It's politics.

Why do you think so many Labour MPs (and the majority of pre-2015 members, based on polling) were horrified by Corbyn's election?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that your view might be that it was because they were afraid of/ hated a true socialist left wing political programme.

My perspective (and I am confident I'm right in this) is that they were horrified because they immediately recognised that "old old labour", as Corbyn was known would never win an election (2015 was characterised as a battle between new new labour (Kendall), old new labour (Cooper), New old labour (Burnham) and old old labour (Corbyn)).
 
I know that you have got no time for my political opinions but i will just say this. You are spot on with alot of things in this post. I just dont think that there are enough people in this country who see any personal advantage in there being a Labour government even one with far better credibility than the current crew.Anyone in work with half decent prospects would be very hard to convince that socialism is the way forward for them in my opinion.
I agree entirely. And this is why you have actually seen a higher proportion of Latino voters going for Trump.

Actual voters generally don't want handouts like free internet; partly because they suspect the majority of those handouts go to people who do sod all anyway.

People will vote for a party that is;

- most positive about now and the future
- most unashamedly proud of what the country is right now and what it can be
- promises to give them the tools to get the things they want for themselves.

Corbyn's national education service is a brilliant idea; it is far too expensive and difficult to retrain for a new job or industry now, especially in a market that expects people to do almost any job with no training or development investment. But labour never really pushed the "self help" value of this idea; voters didn't get given the argument that you might one day lose your job or your industry, and this service will help you train for free for a new one when that happens; they just heard something that would be free to other people but probably expensive for them.

Most households have the internet and it's a utility they barely notice going out now; they heard a policy that would cost them a fortune in tax to give poor people who didn't work free internet.

You are absolutely right, Labour are gaining credibility now but need to give voters a tangible reason to switch.

Out of pure interest, what would it take to convince you to switch, if anything? People need to be asking you this question because you are the kind of voter Labour needs to win over
 
I dont, because I don't see it as dark forces. It's politics.

Why do you think so many Labour MPs (and the majority of pre-2015 members, based on polling) were horrified by Corbyn's election?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that your view might be that it was because they were afraid of/ hated a true socialist left wing political programme.

My perspective (and I am confident I'm right in this) is that they were horrified because they immediately recognised that "old old labour", as Corbyn was known would never win an election (2015 was characterised as a battle between new new labour (Kendall), old new labour (Cooper), New old labour (Burnham) and old old labour (Corbyn)).

So you're fine with staff and MP conspiring against the leader? When dark forces are at work within Labour (and getting rid of someone you dislike) it's just 'politics'. Is the anti-Semitism trick just 'politics'. Does it not worry you how much power a few hold, not just within the LP or even Tory Party but in society in general?

They didn't want him because they are mainly centre-right Blairites. Corbyn was just about "old old Labour" as you put it, there were many modern policies; starnge how he ended up appealing to the young when everyone said he'd only appeal the the "old school"
 
So you're fine with staff and MP conspiring against the leader? When dark forces are at work within Labour (and getting rid of someone you dislike) it's just 'politics'. Is the anti-Semitism trick just 'politics'. Does it not worry you how much power a few hold, not just within the LP or even Tory Party but in society in general?

They didn't want him because they are mainly centre-right Blairites. Corbyn was just about "old old Labour" as you put it, there were many modern policies; starnge how he ended up appealing to the young when everyone said he'd only appeal the the "old school"
Yes, it was strange, but in a way it wasn't strange at all.

Socialism has never appealed to older people. It appeals to the young. Some of the young who get the bug keep it into later age.

I am not using the term dark forces, I am using the term politics. What was going on behind the scenes in the Tory party was no different. There was no conspiracy of any value; the only challenge to his leadership came after his utter betrayal of the entire labour movement in the referendum. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was an outright rebellion and a justified one.

Corbyn ended up having as much time as he wanted, and achieved nothing electorally with it. Did May get all the time she wanted? Will Johnson?
 
What is the one thing Jeremy Corbyn and KEITH Starmer have in common

They both are were Leaders of Labour and never became PM's

When Memes are being made by people like the Anniverary of the Miners strike like the one below you know Labour are fucked
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1605962175501.jpg
    FB_IMG_1605962175501.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 7
Because they aren't Darth Vader respirators either, and because Covid can get in via multiple means via patients who are not immediately wearing medical grade masks
So surely if he's working so closely to his crew member who's tested positive and dealt with the same patients, he should be self isolating?
I doubt they're wearing masks in between jobs in the ambulance.

They spend most of their time inside the ambulance now days since the Tories closed down the stations.
 
So surely if he's working so closely to his crew member who's tested positive and dealt with the same patients, he should be self isolating?
I doubt they're wearing masks in between jobs in the ambulance.

They spend most of their time inside the ambulance now days since the Tories closed down the stations.
He might not have dealt with the same patients as they won't have been on shift together every day necessarily.
 
Took a break from the Corbyn debate and don't have much more to say on it, but this sums up my position.

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting JC is the Messiah, or should resume leadership of the Labour party. All I’ve done is point out a vicious whispering campaign against him (more of a shouting campaign!) which has made him a toxic brand, regardless of his actual strengths or flaws.

Compare and contrast:

After an Israeli rabbi was attacked whilst visiting London in November 2019, Corbyn phoned Rabbi Herschel Gluck, chairperson of Jewish neighbourhood watch organisation Shomrim, to express his concern for and empathy with the community. He tweeted that "We must stop this scourge of antisemitism". Gluck commented that the community appreciated Corbyn's concern and that Corbyn was the only party leader who called.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party)

The Jewish Labour Movement last night condemned the decision to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour party, warning it would merely “embolden those who agreed with him”. (Guardian 17/11/20)

This seems appropriate:

Scapegoat n. A goat on which, once a year, the Jewish high priest symbolically laid the sins of the people, and which was then allowed to escape into the wilderness. (Chambers dictionary).
 
I love this game of personality politics that I learned from the right wing of Labour the right wing media

It can make for some nice name calling

Keith and his Conservatives
Owd Starmer the Harmer

Doing the work of the Tories
 
I agree entirely. And this is why you have actually seen a higher proportion of Latino voters going for Trump.

Actual voters generally don't want handouts like free internet; partly because they suspect the majority of those handouts go to people who do sod all anyway.

People will vote for a party that is;

- most positive about now and the future
- most unashamedly proud of what the country is right now and what it can be
- promises to give them the tools to get the things they want for themselves.

Corbyn's national education service is a brilliant idea; it is far too expensive and difficult to retrain for a new job or industry now, especially in a market that expects people to do almost any job with no training or development investment. But labour never really pushed the "self help" value of this idea; voters didn't get given the argument that you might one day lose your job or your industry, and this service will help you train for free for a new one when that happens; they just heard something that would be free to other people but probably expensive for them.

Most households have the internet and it's a utility they barely notice going out now; they heard a policy that would cost them a fortune in tax to give poor people who didn't work free internet.

You are absolutely right, Labour are gaining credibility now but need to give voters a tangible reason to switch.

Out of pure interest, what would it take to convince you to switch, if anything? People need to be asking you this question because you are the kind of voter Labour needs to win over
You asked me that some time ago and at the time i said i would have to think about it. Well for what it is worth credibility is the big obstacle for me and i just cant see that
I agree entirely. And this is why you have actually seen a higher proportion of Latino voters going for Trump.

Actual voters generally don't want handouts like free internet; partly because they suspect the majority of those handouts go to people who do sod all anyway.

People will vote for a party that is;

- most positive about now and the future
- most unashamedly proud of what the country is right now and what it can be
- promises to give them the tools to get the things they want for themselves.

Corbyn's national education service is a brilliant idea; it is far too expensive and difficult to retrain for a new job or industry now, especially in a market that expects people to do almost any job with no training or development investment. But labour never really pushed the "self help" value of this idea; voters didn't get given the argument that you might one day lose your job or your industry, and this service will help you train for free for a new one when that happens; they just heard something that would be free to other people but probably expensive for them.

Most households have the internet and it's a utility they barely notice going out now; they heard a policy that would cost them a fortune in tax to give poor people who didn't work free internet.

You are absolutely right, Labour are gaining credibility now but need to give voters a tangible reason to switch.

Out of pure interest, what would it take to convince you to switch, if anything? People need to be asking you this question because you are the kind of voter Labour needs to win over
You asked me this question a while ago and i said i would have to think about it. For me the over riding factor is one of credibility. Labour is a split entity, on the one hand some of their MPs would seem to know what it takes to run a modern democratic government and i agree with most of what some of them have to say. Thats on the one hand, but, and its an insurmountable but for me, on the other they have a large percentage of their membership who represent the very opposite of what i want in a government. The leadership has to keep both happy and i just dont think that it can be done. Throw twats like Maclusky (?) into the mix and i hope you can see where i am coming from. Thats not to say that the tories havn't got their fair share of people who i cant abide, some of the oohar henrys in safe seats for instance i look upon with the same contempt as i do with several of the younger mouthier MPs on the labour side. One or other of these parties have to govern and on balance for me it is the Conservatives. Sorry.
 
What is the one thing Jeremy Corbyn and KEITH Starmer have in common

They both are were Leaders of Labour and never became PM's

When Memes are being made by people like the Anniverary of the Miners strike like the one below you know Labour are fucked

Tbf u could flip that and point out if the fringes are putting out memes like this then starmer is clearly doing something right.
 
You asked me that some time ago and at the time i said i would have to think about it. Well for what it is worth credibility is the big obstacle for me and i just cant see that

You asked me this question a while ago and i said i would have to think about it. For me the over riding factor is one of credibility. Labour is a split entity, on the one hand some of their MPs would seem to know what it takes to run a modern democratic government and i agree with most of what some of them have to say. Thats on the one hand, but, and its an insurmountable but for me, on the other they have a large percentage of their membership who represent the very opposite of what i want in a government. The leadership has to keep both happy and i just dont think that it can be done. Throw twats like Maclusky (?) into the mix and i hope you can see where i am coming from. Thats not to say that the tories havn't got their fair share of people who i cant abide, some of the oohar henrys in safe seats for instance i look upon with the same contempt as i do with several of the younger mouthier MPs on the labour side. One or other of these parties have to govern and on balance for me it is the Conservatives. Sorry.

Tens of thousands dead
Billions lost or wasted
Led by bullies, liars and theives
Debt over 100% of gdp

No, not corbyn, the conservative party! Surely to god no one wants this current conservative govt, country cant take much more imo
 
Tens of thousands dead
Billions lost or wasted
Led by bullies, liars and theives
Debt over 100% of gdp

No, not corbyn, the conservative party! Surely to god no one wants this current conservative govt, country cant take much more imo
Thats just yet another opinion though isnt it? This time its yours. Why post that as a reply to me?