Page 81 of 93

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:49 am
by Abernathy
I strongly suspect that "NevTheSweeper" is indulging in a bit of light recreational trolling. He may well even be the reincarnation of a certain junior doctor who once plagued this forum with startlingly similar claptrap until he was finally given the order of the boot. .

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:29 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Ah, bless...

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:05 pm
by Crabcakes
NevTheSweeper wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 7:17 pm The current Labour party is heading for defeat at the next general election.
I will take that bet. £1000?

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:14 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
If the 'current' Labour party is heading for defeat, what is the alternative Labour party that isn't? Can I guess?

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:01 pm
by Crabcakes
On a similar note, I genuinely can’t get into the mindset of someone who sees the vast corruption of people like Mone, and the outright nastiness of Sunak and his trans slurs, and who will still be furious when Labour is elected and Starmer becomes PM because they see ‘no difference’.

It’s not even perfection being the enemy of good, because the complaints would still be the same as it’s based an impossible desire for the past to be different. It’s now just childish tantrum throwing. I did not get exactly what I want, therefore I’d prefer everyone to be fucking miserable indefinitely.

Corbyn wasn’t popular. He’s not coming back. Most people didn’t want him, and even a fully softball-throwing media and a party who let every gaffe, flight of whimsy and skeleton in the closet pass without comment would have made minimal difference because he simply was and is not particularly talented, clever, inspiring or reliable, and had a history of simplistic worldviews, dangerous naivety and ego-driven peevishness. He failed, and spectacularly so.

So now you can either cry about it forever, or help get rid of genuine fucking proto-fascists, bigots and casual racists, and take the opportunity to possibly get them out of office for decades, and maybe (in their present form) break their hateful party forever.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:21 pm
by Andy McDandy
Yes, that entire Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Brewster's Millions "None of the Above", too good for this sinful Earth, first man since Guy Fawkes to enter Parliament with honest intentions, done in by the establishment, fucking hagiographic mythology that's grown up in a few short years around a man who before his election to party leader, had spent many years doing little more than fuck all. He wasn't some sort of firebrand demagogue stoking up the crowds, nor was he doing the Tony Benn wise old elder just inspiring young people to take an interest routine. He wasn't a Dave Nellist "working wage for a working MP" example-setter. He was a comfortably ensconced MP with the majority and irrelevance to allow him to indulge himself.

I've said before that I hate the phrase "luxury beliefs", but by Jiminy, if anyone could be said to have them, it's him.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:15 pm
by Crabcakes
And he grew up in a fucking mansion, couldn’t be arsed with education and argued with his tutors because he thought he knew better, and fucked off on a round the world jolly before landing a plum union job.

And none of that (with the possible exception of thinking you’re better than your teachers) necessarily makes anyone a bad person. But what does make them an arrogant arsehole is taking their life journey and then deliberately acting in a way that would leave other people stuck in what you saw as an idealised pattern of ‘good socialist life’ when you never experienced that yourself and had far more freedoms, options and benefits.

People didn’t avoid voting for Labour because of a few Sun columns about him. They avoided voting Labour because he’s a blatant hypocrite. And it’s in part why the press are even worse now but it’s not denting Starmer. Not because he’s ’just another Tory’, but because you don’t have to worry about him getting in and repeatedly telling you how much he loves peace while pulling all resources from Ukraine because that nice Mr Putin asked him to.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:15 pm
by The Weeping Angel
What a fucking mess


Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:22 pm
by Abernathy
Yes, but I think it is the only feasible alternative. Labour was hamstrung whichever other direction it chose. I still don’t think that Galloway will get elected. Shockingly, some muslim Labour voters might actually like what Azhar Ali said.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:24 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
What a twat.

And also his CLP chair, who didn't spot this.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:43 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Yeah, they should have done this yesterday.

He might well win anyway.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:06 pm
by Abernathy
If you think about it, Labour’s entire reconstruction over the last four years has been substantially based on an almost entirely successful purge of anti-semitism from the party. This by-election candidate actively risks undermining that gain in advance of an election which should see Labour back in government. So it takes on the character of a somewhat existential issue for Labour.

We can’t take him off the ballot paper, because it’s too late to do so. But we can publicly disown the twat. Which will do for me.

Galloway might well get elected as a consequence, but a twat in a hat MP can be tolerated and/ or ignored.

We’re absolutely right to cut this twat loose.

I’m rather more disappointed that this dickhead wasn’t picked up on during the selection procedure.


Jog on.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:44 pm
by Abernathy
To return to the analogy of Labour as a (wo)man carefully carrying a priceless porcelain vase along a corridor with a highly polished floor, Rochdale represents, if you like, some brainless twat thoughtlessly chucking a few marbles under our feet.

I’m still confident that we will stay on our feet, and that we’ll keep the vase intact.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:58 pm
by mattomac
I’m fine it seems there was more and due process was followed.

Tories must be gutted.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 1:04 am
by davidjay
mattomac wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 10:58 pm I’m fine it seems there was more and due process was followed.

Tories must be gutted.
Damien from Brighton's happy, though.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:37 am
by Youngian
In the long run this move sends a clear message to candidates thinking of mouthing off. But the short term optics are terrible; Labour more interested in squabbling about the Middle East than living standards in Rochadale. At least Galloway can’t use that line.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:27 am
by Abernathy
Slightly concerned that Andrew Fisher has been on the Today programme this morning using the opportunity to claim, with some credibility, that this debacle exposes double standards in the party’s approach to dealing with anti-semitic attitudes. Fisher predictably asserted that because Ali was not “of the left”, the proper due diligence was not carried out, resulting in him being selected for the Rochdale by-election when it is now clear he never should have been. I don’t believe that for a minute, however.

Oddly, Louise Ellman, the prominent Jewish former MP who resigned from the party because of Corbyn’s failures to deal with anti-semitism, was also on the programme saying that she had known Ali for 20 years and that he was never remotely anti-semitic and was actually very supportive of Jewish people in the party.

All very confusing. There is no doubt, however, in my view, that the party has dropped the ball badly with this debacle. I just hope it hasn’t suffered too much damage and can move on quickly.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:30 am
by Tubby Isaacs
Fisher has a point. Suspending Andy McDonald was preposterous.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:34 am
by Andy McDandy
I didn't do a fucking thing.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:42 am
by Abernathy
Andy McDandy wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:34 am I didn't do a fucking thing.
Yes you did, you bastard. You made an obscure reference to some film or other.