Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
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?
(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?
Last edited:
