So looks like it’s been confirmed Corbyn will be barred from running as a Labour candidate in the next election - The Starmtocracy continues!

So looks like it’s been confirmed Corbyn will be barred from running as a Labour candidate in the next election - The Starmtocracy continues!

 

He's run as an Independent all his political life so I don't think it makes too much difference. Be interesting to see if he retains his seat, suspect he will do.

Said like a establishmentarian that you are Rooney 😉, seems like you can only be in Labour under Starmer if you hold certain views. I mean if this was the left it would be deselection from the stalinists all over the news!

Said like a establishmentarian that you are Rooney 😉, seems like you can only be in Labour under Starmer if you hold certain views. I mean if this was the left it would be deselection from the stalinists all over the news!

 

Not at all, but the if you don't tow the Party line and continue to be a rebel then what's the point? It's hardly like if they admit the man back to the Party he will follow the whip and get in line, he'll just do what he's done his entire political career. Suspect this is as much of a ploy to find everyone who'd choose Corbyn over Labour to get them out of the Party. The best thing for the very left would be for Corbyn not to sand as an Independent. The Party should be all-encompassing, don't agree with purging different views but we're 3 years on and we still have a very real Corbyn problem.

Only because Starmer is loudly picking fights with the left, rather than, idk, letting them stay in their lane and following the direction that got him elected as leader.

 

This motion is only about Corbyn's perceived unpopularity and election records though, that it'll harm Labour's prospects elsewhere if he stands. Which means to me that they have no ironclad way to stop him putting himself forward under any of the number of things they've accused him, so they're banking on a 'good for the party' stance. And if the NEC accepts that, I'd call it all a bit arbitrary.

 

I could even say that means you might want to expel Brown, Miliband and Kinnock for the same then, but that's a bit flippant. What's more worrying is this imposition from party headquarters, no one likes parachuted candidates and I think there's a real worry right now that Starmer's team will think they're oh so clever putting up a big member of the Labour right in Islington N to duke it out only to get real fireworks and backlash. Labour's left are in the strongholds they are for a reason.

There’s been candidates parachuted into loads of local seats and local people who have worked hard all their lives for the party are being sidelined just like the Blair years, true democracy doesn’t exist in Britain it’s just for professionals who will do their job keeping the ship steady until they get lucrative corporate contracts after being MPs see the likes of Geoff Hoon and Patrica Hewitt during the Blair years. Seriously it’s like the last chapter of Animal Farm, hardly any difference between blue and red all the same….

There’s been candidates parachuted into loads of local seats and local people who have worked hard all their lives for the party are being sidelined just like the Blair years, true democracy doesn’t exist in Britain it’s just for professionals who will do their job keeping the ship steady until they get lucrative corporate contracts after being MPs see the likes of Geoff Hoon and Patrica Hewitt during the Blair years. Seriously it’s like the last chapter of Animal Farm, hardly any difference between blue and red all the same….

 

I don't agree with that, but the main problem the Socialists have is Corbyn (see his recent Ukraine comments). People like socialist policies, but they don't like Corbyn according to all the polls. Then unfortunately you have people who are loyal to the man and not the Party. Feel as though if there is going to a real strong socialist vote within Labour they need a great leader rather than some of the utter chancers that represent them. There's a massive opportunity to influence within, and I don't believe Starmer wants to negate that entire wing (I feel he is silly/badly advised if so). There needs to be an element of pragmatism to get in. Big change isn't going to happen overnight and everything suggests the voting public prefers someone who is Centrist, but they will accept left wing policies and ideas just as long as they are not painted like the revolution.

The situation is unjust and sucks but not a fair world. The demographic make up of the UK of people of voting age who actually vote is not left wing,inclusive and radical especially when you factor in the laughably (except not funny) unfair FPTP. Elections are not won in inner cities or university towns- it's small towns mainly in North and Midlands full of ageing people who have reactionary views and take in some, not all thankfully, of the propaganda are horrific corrupt press, now including the BBC.

 

Not saying that this move is wise tactically (although don't see any mass resignations/defections by MPs) but hoping for a PM the majority of people (including me) on Buzzjack want in a reactionary, depressed society like Britain is like expecting a group of carnivores to go vegan overnight. At least Starmer maybe the equivalent of adding a couple of veggie options twice a week..getting rid of a few the ultra cruel batshit policies of the Tories and making life for the poorest in society slightly better.

 

As for Corbyn himself, it's sad but thought his recent Russia/Ukraine comments were dodgy, even though I agree with the fact that Western foreign policy (Iraq especially) means we are severely weakened morally

 

One thing I find a bit disappointing is the lack of cooperation between Labour and Lib Dems. I'd just hate it if they both campaigned to the fullest and let Tories in seats in South that if they combined they'd lose. But maybe that will come later.

 

Edited March 28, 20232 yr by Smint

I don't agree with that, but the main problem the Socialists have is Corbyn (see his recent Ukraine comments). People like socialist policies, but they don't like Corbyn according to all the polls. Then unfortunately you have people who are loyal to the man and not the Party. Feel as though if there is going to a real strong socialist vote within Labour they need a great leader rather than some of the utter chancers that represent them. There's a massive opportunity to influence within, and I don't believe Starmer wants to negate that entire wing (I feel he is silly/badly advised if so). There needs to be an element of pragmatism to get in. Big change isn't going to happen overnight and everything suggests the voting public prefers someone who is Centrist, but they will accept left wing policies and ideas just as long as they are not painted like the revolution.

 

I don’t care about Corbyn or whoever else is the leader of the faction it’s not about the leader it’s the policies. But any leader who gains support on the left will be ripped apart by the press like JC!

I don't agree with that, but the main problem the Socialists have is Corbyn (see his recent Ukraine comments). People like socialist policies, but they don't like Corbyn according to all the polls. Then unfortunately you have people who are loyal to the man and not the Party. Feel as though if there is going to a real strong socialist vote within Labour they need a great leader rather than some of the utter chancers that represent them. There's a massive opportunity to influence within, and I don't believe Starmer wants to negate that entire wing (I feel he is silly/badly advised if so). There needs to be an element of pragmatism to get in. Big change isn't going to happen overnight and everything suggests the voting public prefers someone who is Centrist, but they will accept left wing policies and ideas just as long as they are not painted like the revolution.

 

Yeah, I feel that his actions really speak to actually negating that entire wing. The Tories don't do this with any of their (many) disgraced leaders, and this targeted action seems to only make sense to ensure that Corbyn's ideas don't reemerge within the Labour Party, even as such a time that they're quite likely to be favourable - divorced from Corbyn the man himself of course. That probably the biggest influx of Labour MPs in a generation is coming is what makes this a crucial time for the left to resist it, less they be shut out of British politics at a time when generationally, they should start to dominate it.

 

Though, I see a clear reason as to why, but I think it's misguided. Labour are looking at their poll lead as 'their base + won-over Tories' and are doing everything possible to keep the latter onside even at the expense of the base. Which does to start to chip away at the base as you can then legitimately use the argument that 'if we are getting out the Tories, but not Tory policy, why should we vote for you?'.

 

I would instead characterise the poll lead as 'Labour's base + floating voters who just want personal prosperity' and big ideological moves like banning Corbyn aren't really going to resonate with that latter, nor would they care, but plans and action to reduce the cost of living and redirect wealth from corporate profits into the hands of the people would. In that those ideas aren't painted like the revolution as you say.

The obsession with Corbyn is really something else - every other leader of the two parties gets forgotten about pretty quickly especially the ruthless Tories - Cameron, May, Truss and even Johnson (look at how his rebellion flopped last week with not much fanfare) seem like history but people talk about Corbyn 3.5 years after he finished and Owen Jones rightly notices about how he is harassed outside his front door more than any other current politician. It's like how his views and ideas must never be allowed to rise up again, how dare capitalism ever be challenged!

Edited March 29, 20232 yr by Smint

starmer and co doing their best to blow the lead by becoming UKIP of all things

 

@1643973886311297028

 

They've already got shadow ministers refusing to back this up - embarrassing shit.

As has been pointed out by others on Twitter, if Labour go down this line of attack, it means that the record of their leader Keir Starmer as Director of Prosecutions up to 2013 becomes fair game.

As has been pointed out by others on Twitter, if Labour go down this line of attack, it means that the record of their leader Keir Starmer as Director of Prosecutions up to 2013 becomes fair game.

 

Yeah, there's something to the charge, that the Tories talk big on crime but don't actually get results. I see them trying similar on immigration. But it really is an open goal as you say and like so many of the latest Labour moves, it's aimed at the people so deep in the right-wing camp that they will never move over, while looking incongruous to most people who already vote Labour, including their swing voters.

@1650034062608814089

 

@1650072333527252994

 

Whip suspended

Oh no, another round of 'hierarchy of racism', what a very fun topic to navigate without offending anybody. God the political culture in our media on this subject is so toxic.

 

It's pretty clear if you read that letter, that Abbott was intending to make a point about racism being inescapable when it crosses skin colour boundaries, therefore impossible to avoid for a black person in pre-civil-rights America or apartheid SA. Unfortunately it comes out terribly and she ends up saying that Jewish people (and gypsies, Romani, travellers and Irish people, let's not forget that like the media headlines surely will) only experience 'prejudice' not racism. Comes off pretty blinkered historically too for very obvious reasons and some not so obvious ones (that these 'white' minority groups also have long histories of racism against them even before the obvious one in the 20th century).

 

But on the whole, it actually annoys me more that every single pundit is rounding up to condemn her like she's said something unforgiveable and outright hateful. Though she'd probably do best to keep away from frontline politics anyway.

Reading the Observer article she was replying to though, that's really just a complete unforced error. Why on earth would you, as a senior Labour politician, think it is was a good idea to start taking issue with this of all things?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...ore-complicated

Suspending the whip was the right decision in this case. I doubt she'll be joining Corbyn in the Peace & Justice Party. I imagine she'll visit a synagogue and a Travellers' Community in the next few days, "lessons will be learned", then have the whip quietly restored in a few weeks.

Suspending the whip was the right decision in this case. I doubt she'll be joining Corbyn in the Peace & Justice Party. I imagine she'll visit a synagogue and a Travellers' Community in the next few days, "lessons will be learned", then have the whip quietly restored in a few weeks.

 

I think for the whip to be restored she will have to do some serious grovelling. Suspect it will be though, although also an opportunity for Starmer to get her out of the Labour Party.. don't think he will do that mind.

 

Such an absolutely stupid thing to write so close to the local elections and no doubt a view held by all of her allies. This was either really stupid or self sabotage from her. Madness

Why are all the parties, even the ones you want to support, arseholes?