juanpabloangel18 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 33 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I don’t think you’re supposed to vote Labour based on this sort of thought process. The idea is, we need the tories out so vote Labour and make a wish. I read an article in the New Statesman which basically suggested this is all part of the GE campaign, i.e. KS fighting with and purging left wing people from the party is good optics for middle England voters. Am not sure what the optics of people like Luke Akehurst are meant to be. Maybe it's a good strategy in the short term. We'll see. But I don't think any of this will be soon forgotten once he's in power, and perhaps he'll then have a different problem on his hands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted May 31 Popular Post Share Posted May 31 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 2 hours ago, bickster said: you're thinking is all wrong, Engels would disagree only the wealthy can afford 10 microns, ciggie papers aren't for the workers in the capitalist system. CIggie papers are designed to divide us! Someone's blowing smoke up your behind! This is clearly Socialist Worker's Party propaganda, we in the Worker's Socialist Coalition oppose anything of the sort. It's 2 microns. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 hour ago, juanpabloangel18 said: I read an article in the New Statesman which basically suggested this is all part of the GE campaign, i.e. KS fighting with and purging left wing people from the party is good optics for middle England voters. Am not sure what the optics of people like Luke Akehurst are meant to be. Maybe it's a good strategy in the short term. We'll see. But I don't think any of this will be soon forgotten once he's in power, and perhaps he'll then have a different problem on his hands. Some of the left candidates are making it a bit too easy tbh. I don't even know why people are on X(crement) anymore, other than posturing and liking the wrong posts.. Obviously there's purging going on too (just like under Corbyn, and pretty much any Labour iteration before his). It's the nature of Labour. It's not like it's hard to stay away from promoting other parties, liking content from pariah states, hyping terrorist groups and the like. If someone can't consider the implications of liking or spreading such content I really don't want them being a minister or MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 It’s knowing what posts will be the wrong posts 10 years in the future, that’s where the skill is. Look at that poor Luke Akehurst, he’s had to spend the last couple of days deleting over 2,000 of his own tweets and likes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 hour ago, juanpabloangel18 said: Maybe it's a good strategy in the short term. We'll see. But I don't think any of this will be soon forgotten once he's in power, and perhaps he'll then have a different problem on his hands. I think it's the other way around. I don't think it does help in the short-term. Corbyn was the one that did that, there's no more votes to be had that weren't there already by going after Russell-Moyle, Faheen et al. There are still plenty to be lost though. On the other hand, I think it probably does help him in the long-term. The biggest problem with a decent majority is that it allows discipline to break down and factions to form. If he has 400 MPs, there is no risk in 50 trouble-makers deciding that they can't pretty much form their own voting bloc (hello ERG) which can then dictate the Government's agenda. The more pliant he makes the PLP now, the less trouble he has managing them once in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaoDeMings Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 28 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Some of the left candidates are making it a bit too easy tbh. I don't even know why people are on X(crement) anymore, other than posturing and liking the wrong posts.. Obviously there's purging going on too (just like under Corbyn, and pretty much any Labour iteration before his). It's the nature of Labour. It's not like it's hard to stay away from promoting other parties, liking content from pariah states, hyping terrorist groups and the like. If someone can't consider the implications of liking or spreading such content I really don't want them being a minister or MP. 'It's the nature of Labour' - Do the Tories and other parties not do the same thing? 'It's not like it's hard to stay away from promoting other parties' - If this was a problem for Labour, why are they accepting so many deferring Tories? 'Some of the left candidates are making it a bit too easy' - What about Luke Akehurst, Rosie Duffield, Neil Coyle. Plenty of candidates on the right where there are arguably 'easy' grounds to deselect them. This shouldn't even be a left or right issue. It's antidemocratic and wrong whatever faction of the party is doing it. Making excuses for it because 'the left candidates are making it easy' is nonsense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 41 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: It’s knowing what posts will be the wrong posts 10 years in the future, that’s where the skill is. Look at that poor Luke Akehurst, he’s had to spend the last couple of days deleting over 2,000 of his own tweets and likes. 5 years ago people would stand outside Luciana Berger's house and shout ZIOOOO until she quit the party. That isn't a great t-shirt, by any means, but it was likely a dig at the Corbynites hiding antisemitism behind the term by shouting it at anyone who disagreed with them. Zionism, before the term was warped by Likud, only intended to mean that Jews had a right to a homeland in the hills around Jerusalem(Zion) not the current warped right wing murder-policy meaning that people currently attribute to it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 22 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said: 'It's the nature of Labour' - Do the Tories and other parties not do the same thing? 'It's not like it's hard to stay away from promoting other parties' - If this was a problem for Labour, why are they accepting so many deferring Tories? 'Some of the left candidates are making it a bit too easy' - What about Luke Akehurst, Rosie Duffield, Neil Coyle. Plenty of candidates on the right where there are arguably 'easy' grounds to deselect them. This shouldn't even be a left or right issue. It's antidemocratic and wrong whatever faction of the party is doing it. Making excuses for it because 'the left candidates are making it easy' is nonsense. I think you're confusing an awful lot of things here. It doesn’t matter what the Tories or the LibDems or any other party do, it’s not relevant to how the Labour Party conducts itself. All parties have purges to one degree or another but because the left (in general) is rather more ideological than a lot of he right they are very much more prone to a bit of Stalinist behaviour With regards to accepting Tories, that’s ok otherwise you’d be suggesting people who were once a member of one party rule themselves out from any other for life and that’s ludicrous. But once they’ve jumped ship they have to abide with the rules of that party, so you made a completely false equivalence there Which of the Labour Parties rules are you suggesting Rosie Duffield and Luke Akehurst have broken? FWIW I do think there’s a point regarding Coyle, he should have been out on his ear a long time since but it does rather mirror the Diane Abbott situation, being racist and being sent on a racism course, she should have been banned from standing (but isn’t - yet) Of the two currently deselected Labour candidates only one of those appears to relate to politics, the other seems to relate to complaints made about behaviour, his politics don’t seem relevant to the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 22 minutes ago, DaoDeMings said: 'It's the nature of Labour' - Do the Tories and other parties not do the same thing? 'It's not like it's hard to stay away from promoting other parties' - If this was a problem for Labour, why are they accepting so many deferring Tories? 'Some of the left candidates are making it a bit too easy' - What about Luke Akehurst, Rosie Duffield, Neil Coyle. Plenty of candidates on the right where there are arguably 'easy' grounds to deselect them. This shouldn't even be a left or right issue. It's antidemocratic and wrong whatever faction of the party is doing it. Making excuses for it because 'the left candidates are making it easy' is nonsense. I'm not defending it, though I think people disagree in each different case what they consider a purge. There are people removed for clear breaches of rules, and then there are oddities where you'll have to question why. It's like when Corbyn would flood a constituency with momentum-activists and 'vote' or scare people out. That wasn't democratic either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 31 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31 1 hour ago, magnkarl said: Someone's blowing smoke up your behind! This is clearly Socialist Worker's Party propaganda, we in the Worker's Socialist Coalition oppose anything of the sort. It's 2 microns. Splitters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 2 minutes ago, sidcow said: Splitters. Jesus, 1 micron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 31 Moderator Share Posted May 31 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: 'But is now deselected because she publicly slagged off the party, told incomprehensible lies (banned from standing yet had no contact from the party) and threatened to stand as an independent candidate 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 On 29/05/2024 at 20:06, bickster said: Paul Waugh selected as the candidate for Labour in Rochdale What is he good for? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 36 minutes ago, magnkarl said: 5 years ago people would stand outside Luciana Berger's house and shout ZIOOOO until she quit the party. That isn't a great t-shirt, by any means, but it was likely a dig at the Corbynites hiding antisemitism behind the term by shouting it at anyone who disagreed with them. Zionism, before the term was warped by Likud, only intended to mean that Jews had a right to a homeland in the hills around Jerusalem(Zion) not the current warped right wing murder-policy meaning that people currently attribute to it. Usual thing, imagine a similar tee shirt but saying intifada shitlord, would that be excusable due to context? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 (edited) 28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Usual thing, imagine a similar tee shirt but saying intifada shitlord, would that be excusable due to context? The context is quite clearly different though. Intifada means armed rebellion, terror and resistance, while Zionism means (or meant to the original people fighting for it) that Jews had a right to a homeland. I presume there are many more zionists than people think, just not the rebranded version of it. One implies armed struggle, while the other seeks a homeland for a people who've been mistreated since they were forced out of Egypt. One is also a term used for a group, while the other is a rallying cry used by terrorists. I wouldn't wear either. Edited May 31 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 1 minute ago, magnkarl said: The context is quite clearly different though. Intifada means armed rebellion, terror and resistance, while Zionism means (or meant to the original people fighting for it) that Jews had a right to a homeland. I presume there are many more zionists than people think, just not the rebranded version of it. One implies armed struggle, while the other seeks a homeland for a people who've been mistreated since they were forced out of Egypt. I wouldn't wear either. That is not the literal meaning. You are being selective in applying rebranding context. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 31 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31 Starmer's head should be on a pike if he's intervened in party disciplinary matters directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 31 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31 4 hours ago, juanpabloangel18 said: So this Luke Akehurst guy seems nice, although he's deleted about 2000 tweets this week so it's hard to check. I also note that he chairs Labour MP selection panels! Who'd have thought! So - nothing remotely troubling at all about a fully paid up lobbyist for a pariah state (Israel) deselecting democratically elected candidates and then himself being parachuted into a safe seat. Starmer really doing his best Stalin impression yet this week. What a dreadful time to be a social democrat. Got a link? FWIW I'm not a huge fan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts