Holy shit. That’s a disaster. With Union fees they’ve always been solidly funded

 

 

Another reason to ditch the red Tory

This is why the entire establishment attacked Corbyn: in one afternoon he cleared Labour's debts with people power. Starmer will now be in the pockets of the oligarchs and big business. Coebyn's small donations werwn't going to last forever. Laboue is now a neoliberal party once again. I was right about Starmer all along :')

 

This is the face of neoliberalism centrism, Rooney :') All in it together, shutting out the people from REAL power, but you thought Mad May being in thr pockets of the oligarchs was better than an independent Corbyn bringing power to the people!!

This is why the entire establishment attacked Corbyn: in one afternoon he cleared Labour's debts with people power. Starmer will now be in the pockets of the oligarchs and big business. Coebyn's small donations werwn't going to last forever. Laboue is now a neoliberal party once again. I was right about Starmer all along :')

 

This is the face of neoliberalism centrism, Rooney :') All in it together, shutting out the people from REAL power, but you thought Mad May being in thr pockets of the oligarchs was better than an independent Corbyn bringing power to the people!!

 

Yes the real reason the establishment attacked Corbyn was because he was filthy rich. Just another spin game between the Party, Corbyn supporters can now add they were the richest party title along with the "we would have won the 2017 election if people didn't vote Tory" title too. Grand job.

2017 Labour vote: Biggest increase (+10%) in share of the vote of any party between General Elections since 1945.

 

Spin that one Rooney.

 

Yeah anyone who can't see Starmer's current approach isn't as much, if not more, of a disaster for the Labour party is just deluding themselves.

Starmer is absolutely awful - we have the most despicable PM in power killing his people and we have the worst person at the worst time to oppose him. Plus he ran on the manifesto of uniting all strands of the party. Completely dishonest.

Yes the real reason the establishment attacked Corbyn was because he was filthy rich. Just another spin game between the Party, Corbyn supporters can now add they were the richest party title along with the "we would have won the 2017 election if people didn't vote Tory" title too. Grand job.

 

How do you not get this?? HE was not rich. Thw PARTY was, and ir was FUNDED - listen to what I am saying - FUNDED!!! - by the people, not by corporations or the elite rich. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!! The neolibs could not allow power to be divested to us and away from them.

I have had the misfortune to see alleged Labour members online still holding up Starmer as their Kinnock, as a term of pride.

 

Labour parties have to be self-funded by their members, in basically every developed democracy it is the case that the main party of the left has multiple small donors and the main party of the right has elite large donors. Haven't looked into the details to confirm but it would not surprise me that one substantial reason for Pasokification in international centre-left parties would be declining membership and lack of funds to compete on the same levels that they had before - researching this has led me down a suggestion that mainstream centre-left parties start 'cartelisation' where they are less responsive to the electorate and their members and more to institutions, the exact opposite of the traditional social-democratic organisation.

 

In any case, Labour are certainly not going to be defeating the Conservatives any time soon if they're running out of money (nor if they're losing vote numbers).

2017 Labour vote: Biggest increase (+10%) in share of the vote of any party between General Elections since 1945.

 

Spin that one Rooney.

 

Yeah anyone who can't see Starmer's current approach isn't as much, if not more, of a disaster for the Labour party is just deluding themselves.

 

Easy - up against the worst Conservative manifesto in generations that was so bad. We will be hearing all about Corbyn's great victory for another 10 years, despite the fact he lost.

 

How do you not get this?? HE was not rich. Thw PARTY was, and ir was FUNDED - listen to what I am saying - FUNDED!!! - by the people, not by corporations or the elite rich. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!! The neolibs could not allow power to be divested to us and away from them.

 

Corbyn is rich.

 

People are forgetting the millions of pounds that have been wasted for data breaches and discrimination cases. Pretty sure membership levels are still at the same level as 2019 from NEC. Whilst Starmer is not the second coming of Christ, to fully blame the financial mess on his current leadership is not the answer.

Senior staff are blaming lost members as one of the key reasons though? Every piece of available evidence suggest the party's membership has massively contracted since the Corbyn days.

 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/108737/labour-see...rbyn-suspension

Membership numbers are now under 500,000 for the first time since Corbyn’s election, in 2016 - and the drop is “believed to have hastened in recent weeks” in the wake of the ex-leader’s suspension, the paper adds. Corbyn was reinstated last week after being booted out at the end of October following the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report into anti-Semitism within the party.

 

According to figures published by Labour, the party had 552,835 members eligible to vote in its leadership election in April. That figure dropped to 495,961 in the National Executive Committee (NEC) elections two weeks ago.

 

That's from November last year, which is the latest reliable report of numbers I can find. another source suggests 539,000 last November and as low as 489,000 this April. The 580k figure currently on Labour's Wikipedia page leads to a dead source.

 

I can fully blame this financial mess on Starmer, to have gamed votes from the left of the party on a ticket of pro-unity and then turned out to be nothing of the sort has undoubtedly been a factor in this membership loss - and another reason for financial destitution has to be all those big name business interests who funded his leadership campaign but mysteriously haven't funded the party at all since he was elected, and on top of that to throw away money on legal fees for case pay-outs the party had been advised they could win was needless and damaged the party's reputation further, as I said back when they came out.

meanwhile looks like someone's figured out the problem with the Labour Party, just a shame he's speaking from 30 years ago:

 

Easy - up against the worst Conservative manifesto in generations that was so bad. We will be hearing all about Corbyn's great victory for another 10 years, despite the fact he lost.

Corbyn is rich.

 

People are forgetting the millions of pounds that have been wasted for data breaches and discrimination cases. Pretty sure membership levels are still at the same level as 2019 from NEC. Whilst Starmer is not the second coming of Christ, to fully blame the financial mess on his current leadership is not the answer.

 

Corbyn is NOT rich like the disco citizens elite or the OLIGARCHS or even Bojo the Bloody, or any of the millionaires in the Tory party. He made thr Labour party rich through PEOPLE. POWER. NOT THROUGH OLIGARCHY TAKING CONTROL. That is why the establishment attacked.

 

Coebyn being 2k votes away from pm vs weak and wobbly Mad May, when we had a one party state media for all intents and purposes, whilet Tories were buoyed by Brexshitr plus active Labour sabotage, is simply nothing short of phenomenal. More votes than Blair! People turned out to vote for him, not against the shitty, evil Tories.

Corbyn is NOT rich like the disco citizens elite or the OLIGARCHS or even Bojo the Bloody, or any of the millionaires in the Tory party. He made thr Labour party rich through PEOPLE. POWER. NOT THROUGH OLIGARCHY TAKING CONTROL. That is why the establishment attacked.

 

Coebyn being 2k votes away from pm vs weak and wobbly Mad May, when we had a one party state media for all intents and purposes, whilet Tories were buoyed by Brexshitr plus active Labour sabotage, is simply nothing short of phenomenal. More votes than Blair! People turned out to vote for him, not against the shitty, evil Tories.

 

Of course there are people richer than him, but that doesn't stop him from being rich, does it?

Of course there are people richer than him, but that doesn't stop him from being rich, does it?

 

His wife is a lawyer and he is a politician. He did not profit from his expenses - lowest out of ALL MPs - and got no dodgy deals. He and his wife held steady jobs over decades. There is no mystery here. They have a house in London, and that's the end of their property. Sooo ... your point is? How do any of those facts contradict that the establishment attacked because he funded Labour through small donations from the people and got the party out of the control of the oligarchy? You do realise that whilst the elite own all the main parties, what little democracy there is is nothing more than a veneer for their control?

His wife is a lawyer and he is a politician. He did not profit from his expenses - lowest out of ALL MPs - and got no dodgy deals. He and his wife held steady jobs over decades. There is no mystery here. They have a house in London, and that's the end of their property. Sooo ... your point is? How do any of those facts contradict that the establishment attacked because he funded Labour through small donations from the people and got the party out of the control of the oligarchy? You do realise that whilst the elite own all the main parties, what little democracy there is is nothing more than a veneer for their control?

 

My point is you said Corbyn isn't rich like other politicians, which may or not not be correct. I don't care if he didn't fiddle his expenses, no MP should do that as it's public money! Doesn't stop him from being far richer than anyone is likely to ever be on this forum whether he gained his wealth organically or not. He's rich, end of altough do we not class someone with assests worth over a £1m and a cushy salary as not rich these days!?

 

Anyway, in other Labour news..

 

The ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) decided on Tuesday to proscribe ‘Resist’ and ‘Labour Against the Witchhunt’, factions which both claim anti-Semitism allegations have been politically motivated.

 

‘Labour In Exile’, which actively welcomes expelled or suspended members, was banned. Another group, ‘Socialist Appeal’, which describes itself as Marxist, was also proscribed.

 

HuffPost UK understands that letters of “auto-exclusion”, informing members they have effectively expelled themselves by being members of any of the groups, will be sent by the end of this week.

 

The NEC approved the proscription with a big majority, insiders said.

My point is you said Corbyn isn't rich like other politicians, which may or not not be correct. I don't care if he didn't fiddle his expenses, no MP should do that as it's public money! Doesn't stop him from being far richer than anyone is likely to ever be on this forum whether he gained his wealth organically or not. He's rich, end of altough do we not class someone with assests worth over a £1m and a cushy salary as not rich these days!?

 

Anyway, in other Labour news..

 

What has that got to do with the fact that he made LABOUR RICH, which is what I said? He himself lives modestly and held a good job for decades, and so is a home owner with stable means. He is NOT a millionaire or in the pockets of the elite, or one of the filthybrich Tories. He is a man of the people and likely does FAR MROE than any of us for the homeless, etc, even on Christmas.

What has that got to do with the fact that he made LABOUR RICH, which is what I said? He himself lives modestly and held a good job for decades, and so is a home owner with stable means. He is NOT a millionaire or in the pockets of the elite, or one of the filthybrich Tories. He is a man of the people and likely does FAR MROE than any of us for the homeless, etc, even on Christmas.

 

I just can't take you seriously Michael and people why I often refer to the cult of Corbyn :lol:

 

Heard it all now, Jeremy Corbyn magically made the Labour Party rich, despite the Labour Party being far older than Corbyn. I forgot they were asking for 2p donation during the Blair and Brown years. Not only that if you are a millionaire, you're not actually a millionaire if your name is Jeremy Corbyn! But that's alright, as he gives out tins of beans to the homeless at Christmas, gee wizz.

Anyway, in other Labour news..

 

This does set a bit of a worrying precedent, for all the talk that Corbyn's era would do "Stalinist purges", they never really did one like this. Three of those groups are fairly unsavoury but this isn't a public-winning move (they do not care), not will it appease the right-wing.

 

Especially since they included Socialist Appeal in this one, who are a fairly big sub-grouping, haven't done anything wrong that I've heard about, and were even allowed to continue in the party during the Blair years. Entirely possible that most ordinary Labour members approve of much of what that group does.

 

“If the Labour Party could be bullied or persuaded to denounce its Marxists, the media – having tasted blood – would demand next that it expelled all its socialists...to form a harmless alternative to the Conservatives… thus British capitalism, it is argued, will be made safe forever, and socialism would be squeezed off the national agenda.” - Tony Benn

Of course there are people richer than him, but that doesn't stop him from being rich, does it?

 

I don’t get the arguement here - can you only be a socialist if you are poor?

I just can't take you seriously Michael and people why I often refer to the cult of Corbyn :lol:

 

Heard it all now, Jeremy Corbyn magically made the Labour Party rich, despite the Labour Party being far older than Corbyn. I forgot they were asking for 2p donation during the Blair and Brown years. Not only that if you are a millionaire, you're not actually a millionaire if your name is Jeremy Corbyn! But that's alright, as he gives out tins of beans to the homeless at Christmas, gee wizz.

 

??

 

He cleared its debts in a single day, using people power, which REALLY upset the ruling oligaechs, hence the entire weight of rhe establishment coming down on him. Mwanwhile, your Starmer has bankrupter it in a few months.

I don’t get the arguement here - can you only be a socialist if you are poor?

 

No.

 

The argument here is Michael claimed Jeremy Corbyn was not rich. I claimed he was. Michael is claiming Corbyn can't be rich because he's a socialist in a capitalist society.

 

??

 

He cleared its debts in a single day, using people power, which REALLY upset the ruling oligaechs, hence the entire weight of rhe establishment coming down on him. Mwanwhile, your Starmer has bankrupter it in a few months.

 

Source for this?