All major political parties are pertorce coalitions and I do not believe the Labour party can ever have been accurately described as 'socialist', If you want a socialist party, try the SPGB.
I'll settle for the one that says in its constitution that it is a "democratic socialist party" and fight the bastards like Starmer who want it to be neither of those things. Labour is and should be a socialist party. If folk want warmed over capitalism with a pretence of humanity the lib dems are right there.
Oi! The Lib Dems have their faults, of course, but I wouldn't say 'a pretence of humanity' was one of them.
'Pretence of humanity' is pretty much liberalism in actual practice. Besides I've read the Orange Book.
FWIW I'm probably leaning more leftwards than I would have done a few years back.
The thing that gives me pause isn't the right-wing media or a particular attachment to liberalism per se but the way many full-on Leftists behave.
It's far too redolent of religious fundamentalism for my liking.
But that's another story.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Lib Dems came out of the Coalition smelling of roses. And plenty of Liberals I've met are far from liberal in practice.
I suppose I'm condemned to being between a rock and a hard place.
All major political parties are pertorce coalitions and I do not believe the Labour party can ever have been accurately described as 'socialist', If you want a socialist party, try the SPGB.
I'll settle for the one that says in its constitution that it is a "democratic socialist party" and fight the bastards like Starmer who want it to be neither of those things. Labour is and should be a socialist party. If folk want warmed over capitalism with a pretence of humanity the lib dems are right there.
Oi! The Lib Dems have their faults, of course, but I wouldn't say 'a pretence of humanity' was one of them.
'Pretence of humanity' is pretty much liberalism in actual practice. Besides I've read the Orange Book.
FWIW I'm probably leaning more leftwards than I would have done a few years back.
The thing that gives me pause isn't the right-wing media or a particular attachment to liberalism per se but the way many full-on Leftists behave.
After the last few years, if the way liberals behave in practice doesn't give you pause, I don't know what to tell you.
'FWIW I'm probably leaning more leftwards than I was a few years back.'
Not all Lib Dems align with Orange Book ideology. But my comments about the Labour left remain.
I've seen how these people can behave. I've seen the damage they can cause to local Labour Party branches and to the individuals within them.
When I've cited instances of Labour activists I know being side-lined or driven out by Militant back in the '80s or Momentum more recently I get confronted with 'La la la la la! We're not listening!'
Or, the kind of No True Scotsman schtick that @Enoch has identified here.
Don't get me wrong. I know plenty of people on the Labour left I admire and respect and whose behaviour towards other people is exemplary.
But it's as if all someone has to do is voice concerns about behaviours they've heard or seen and they are condemned as a running dog of capitalism.
But what do I know?
I'm obviously an Apostate and beyond the pale as far as The True BelieversTM are concerned.
Some of those commenting on the possibility of a tory disaster in the May local elections are suggesting that such a debacle would lead to an attempt to defenestrate Sun*k, and choose yet another person to carry on re-arranging the deckchairs...
I noted Mr Johnson has inserted himself into the news by making an unofficial visit to Venezuela to talk to them about democracy. Perhaps he is trying to remain a public figure and intends to join his chum Dave, as PM in the Lords…
There are rumours that he plans to return as MP for his old constituency of Henley.
'FWIW I'm probably leaning more leftwards than I was a few years back.'
Not all Lib Dems align with Orange Book ideology. But my comments about the Labour left remain.
I've seen how these people can behave. I've seen the damage they can cause to local Labour Party branches and to the individuals within them.
When I've cited instances of Labour activists I know being side-lined or driven out by Militant back in the '80s or Momentum more recently I get confronted with 'La la la la la! We're not listening!'
Or, the kind of No True Scotsman schtick that @Enoch has identified here.
Don't get me wrong. I know plenty of people on the Labour left I admire and respect and whose behaviour towards other people is exemplary.
But it's as if all someone has to do is voice concerns about behaviours they've heard or seen and they are condemned as a running dog of capitalism.
But what do I know?
I'm obviously an Apostate and beyond the pale as far as The True BelieversTM are concerned.
The thing is you only ever have a go at "the left", as if left wing Labour members haven't been hounded out or demonised. It wasn't "the left" that went "trot hunting" to try and rig a leadership election. It isn't "the left" that has spent the last 5 years expelling left-wing Jews from Labour for alleged anti-semitism. Heck, if you want to talk about demonising, how about what's going on now where "the left" is being demonised as Islamists and Hamas supporters for *checks notes* opposing genocide? And what exactly were Kinnock and Thatcher doing to Militant and NUM members if it wasn't demonisation? Has it occurred to you that anger and frustration with the absolute mess "centrists" have made of the country over the last 45 years might be a legitimate response?
The Conservaytives made him an independent. He has chosen to join another party.
And, there's no reason why he couldn't remain an independent MP. He could join Reform and stand on their platform at the next election, whether the general election in November or a by-election before then. No one forced him to join another party and sit as their MP.
The Conservaytives made him an independent. He has chosen to join another party.
And, there's no reason why he couldn't remain an independent MP. He could join Reform and stand on their platform at the next election, whether the general election in November or a by-election before then. No one forced him to join another party and sit as their MP.
I thought he had "only" had the Tory whip removed. Are people suggesting he was kicked out of the Party too?
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
'FWIW I'm probably leaning more leftwards than I was a few years back.'
Not all Lib Dems align with Orange Book ideology. But my comments about the Labour left remain.
I've seen how these people can behave. I've seen the damage they can cause to local Labour Party branches and to the individuals within them.
When I've cited instances of Labour activists I know being side-lined or driven out by Militant back in the '80s or Momentum more recently I get confronted with 'La la la la la! We're not listening!'
Or, the kind of No True Scotsman schtick that @Enoch has identified here.
Don't get me wrong. I know plenty of people on the Labour left I admire and respect and whose behaviour towards other people is exemplary.
But it's as if all someone has to do is voice concerns about behaviours they've heard or seen and they are condemned as a running dog of capitalism.
But what do I know?
I'm obviously an Apostate and beyond the pale as far as The True BelieversTM are concerned.
The thing is you only ever have a go at "the left", as if left wing Labour members haven't been hounded out or demonised. It wasn't "the left" that went "trot hunting" to try and rig a leadership election. It isn't "the left" that has spent the last 5 years expelling left-wing Jews from Labour for alleged anti-semitism. Heck, if you want to talk about demonising, how about what's going on now where "the left" is being demonised as Islamists and Hamas supporters for *checks notes* opposing genocide? And what exactly were Kinnock and Thatcher doing to Militant and NUM members if it wasn't demonisation? Has it occurred to you that anger and frustration with the absolute mess "centrists" have made of the country over the last 45 years might be a legitimate response?
I've never said that it's all one sided. All I'm trying to do is bring some nuance into the discussion, even at the risk of playing Devil's Advocate at times.
I thought he had "only" had the Tory whip removed. Are people suggesting he was kicked out of the Party too?
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
He is merely the Party leader in Parliament and I assume he will have to go and sit near to Galloway and Corbyn
I thought he had "only" had the Tory whip removed. Are people suggesting he was kicked out of the Party too?
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
He is merely the Party leader in Parliament and I assume he will have to go and sit near to Galloway and Corbyn
I thought he had "only" had the Tory whip removed. Are people suggesting he was kicked out of the Party too?
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
He is merely the Party leader in Parliament and I assume he will have to go and sit near to Galloway and Corbyn
Will they want to sit near him?
Or he them?
Their place is on the benches behind the SNP I believe
it’s only convention where people sit and they’re not obliged to sit there
Or in the case of Rees-Mogg slouch.
AIUI, lounging around on park benches is one of the forms of extremism to be outlawed by the tories as soon as they can manage it.
This is because lounging around on park benches is clearly contrary to British Values™, inasmuch as it proves that the loungers are lazy scrotes, unwilling to work, and probably spending their time plotting against the government God has given them.
Lounging (or slouching) on benches within the House of Commons is, however, perfectly acceptable behaviour.
It's all very 'If anything, my biggest fault is that I work too hard'. The few lines from Sienna Rodgers a few years ago still remains more insightful than the 'unauthorised' biography from a former Head of Comms for Labour and People's Vote.
I doubt Starmer will be displeased, as it has led to a round of very sympathetic interviews, and it's instructive to think a little about which other politicians get this kind of treatment: https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1767189100879097958
A friend of Hester and fellow member of the conservative party has extended the theory that he cannot be racist because "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas and does a lot of business in Jamaica"
A friend of Hester and fellow member of the conservative party has extended the theory that he cannot be racist because "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas and does a lot of business in Jamaica"
That's the millionaire capitalist version of "some of my best friends are black", isn't it?
A friend of Hester and fellow member of the conservative party has extended the theory that he cannot be racist because "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas and does a lot of business in Jamaica"
That's the millionaire capitalist version of "some of my best friends are black", isn't it?
Exactly, and just as worthless as the usual non-millionaire version.
A friend of Hester and fellow member of the conservative party has extended the theory that he cannot be racist because "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas and does a lot of business in Jamaica"
One is tempted to comment that the same could have been said of most 18th century plantation owners…
A friend of Hester and fellow member of the conservative party has extended the theory that he cannot be racist because "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas and does a lot of business in Jamaica"
One is tempted to comment that the same could have been said of most 18th century plantation owners…
Indeed.
It's an even poorer defence than it might seem.
Bishop's Finger Hell can be a cold place.....According to Dante anyway the innermost circle of Hell that of Treachery is a frozen lake and they're not skating on it. So it can be a cold day in Hell but really one would not want to go there.......-D
That's the millionaire capitalist version of "some of my best friends are black", isn't it?
Yes, except it's an even weaker statement, because everyone knows that you do business with people that you wouldn't even acknowledge in a social setting.
Bishop's Finger Hell can be a cold place.....According to Dante anyway the innermost circle of Hell that of Treachery is a frozen lake and they're not skating on it. So it can be a cold day in Hell but really one would not want to go there.......-D
I thought he had "only" had the Tory whip removed. Are people suggesting he was kicked out of the Party too?
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
He is merely the Party leader in Parliament and I assume he will have to go and sit near to Galloway and Corbyn
I thought he had "only" had the Tory whip removed. Are people suggesting he was kicked out of the Party too?
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
He is merely the Party leader in Parliament and I assume he will have to go and sit near to Galloway and Corbyn
I thought he had "only" had the Tory whip removed. Are people suggesting he was kicked out of the Party too?
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
He is merely the Party leader in Parliament and I assume he will have to go and sit near to Galloway and Corbyn
Will they want to sit near him?
Or he them?
Today he sat next to Galloway.
Which is different to him actually 'wanting' to sit next to Galloway or Galloway wanting to sit next to him. They are both bonkers. Birds of a feather ...
@alienfromzog - was Corbyn sat near or next to either of them?
I saw a nice photo of the two of them on the backbenches. For some reason, very funny.
It looks as if Sunak is still accusing Starmer of serving under Corbyn, but journos seem to think this is now counter-productive. Starmer is developing a line of repartee, I changed this party, he can't, etc. But then who watches PMQs?
Rather shocking that the Speaker didn't call Diane Abbott to speak today. WTF?
Note that she's currently suspended from the Labour Party, pending an investigation appears not to have moved for about 11 months now (this despite apologising and retracting the statement which led to her suspension, which was acceptable in the case of other MPs like Steve Reed, Barry Sheerman etc.)
This is what Hoyle's spokesperson says about that controversial decision:
During prime minister’s questions, the speaker must select MPs from either side of the house on an alternating basis for fairness.
This takes place within a limited timeframe, with the chair prioritising members who are already listed on the order paper.
This week – as is often the case – there was not enough time to call all members who wanted to ask a question.
FWIW.
It may be that the Speaker did not want the House of Toddlers to descend once more into a *discussion* producing more heat than light...but yes, under the circumstances, Abbott should have had the chance to ask her question, After all, she's the one suffering the shite being slung at her by the evil racist tory scumbags.
It may be that the Speaker did not want the House of Toddlers to descend once more into a *discussion* producing more heat than light...but yes, under the circumstances,
There was every chance she'd raise her treatment by the Labour leadership and Hoyle was protecting Starmer:
It may be that the Speaker did not want the House of Toddlers to descend once more into a *discussion* producing more heat than light...but yes, under the circumstances,
There was every chance she'd raise her treatment by the Labour leadership and Hoyle was protecting Starmer:
@alienfromzog , yes. That is what systemic racism & misogyny looks like, holding a debate about whether a political donor saying he wants to shoot a black MP is a bad thing and not allowing that MP to speak on her own behalf. Diane Abbott stood up 46 times to try and be heard, FFS.
The whole business is shameful, not just the vile words of the evil racist scumbag Fester, and the tories' reaction will, hopefully, help to see them consigned to Outer Darkness at the next General Election (if they haven't banned elections by then).
However, I do feel some slight sympathy for the Speaker, caught once more between a rock and a hard place. Had he allowed Ms Abbott to speak, the House might have descended into yet another playground shouting match, but he may have been misguided (in sticking to the rules) rather than malicious.
As to whether he was trying to save Starmer's face, that's a POV, but the coals of fire would surely have been heaped mostly upon tory heads.
BTW, why has evil racist scumbag Fester not been arrested for inciting racial hatred and violence? I wonder if £10million has anything to do with that?
Just for the record, the rules are that MPs get to ask the PM a question. The Leader of the opposition gets to ask more than one as does the leader of the third largest party.
Otherwise it's back bench MPs from both sides.
They are only allowed to speak if called on by the Speaker. To be called on they must stand up.
MPs table questions in advance and get on the order paper. For fairness the Speaker will normally go thru the order paper but he/she does not have to. The Speaker can call any standing MP at any point.
The Speakers only excuse would be if there were so many MPs who had tabled questions in advance that he didn't call anyone who stood up without being on the order paper. If that's what he did then he needs to say that, and say it clearly. But, if there was even one MP called to speak who hadn't tabled a question in advance then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If I was Uncle Fester from the Adams family I would be very upset.
I think the Cons should drop him and keep the money. That would be a better punishment than anything else. Take the money and give the contract to someone else.
It has been suggested that scumbag Fester's money should be donated to anti-racist charities/organisations, but I somehow doubt whether that will happen...
Comments
FWIW I'm probably leaning more leftwards than I would have done a few years back.
The thing that gives me pause isn't the right-wing media or a particular attachment to liberalism per se but the way many full-on Leftists behave.
It's far too redolent of religious fundamentalism for my liking.
But that's another story.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Lib Dems came out of the Coalition smelling of roses. And plenty of Liberals I've met are far from liberal in practice.
I suppose I'm condemned to being between a rock and a hard place.
After the last few years, if the way liberals behave in practice doesn't give you pause, I don't know what to tell you.
'FWIW I'm probably leaning more leftwards than I was a few years back.'
Not all Lib Dems align with Orange Book ideology. But my comments about the Labour left remain.
I've seen how these people can behave. I've seen the damage they can cause to local Labour Party branches and to the individuals within them.
When I've cited instances of Labour activists I know being side-lined or driven out by Militant back in the '80s or Momentum more recently I get confronted with 'La la la la la! We're not listening!'
Or, the kind of No True Scotsman schtick that @Enoch has identified here.
Don't get me wrong. I know plenty of people on the Labour left I admire and respect and whose behaviour towards other people is exemplary.
But it's as if all someone has to do is voice concerns about behaviours they've heard or seen and they are condemned as a running dog of capitalism.
But what do I know?
I'm obviously an Apostate and beyond the pale as far as The True BelieversTM are concerned.
The Conservaytives made him an independent. He has chosen to join another party.
The thing is you only ever have a go at "the left", as if left wing Labour members haven't been hounded out or demonised. It wasn't "the left" that went "trot hunting" to try and rig a leadership election. It isn't "the left" that has spent the last 5 years expelling left-wing Jews from Labour for alleged anti-semitism. Heck, if you want to talk about demonising, how about what's going on now where "the left" is being demonised as Islamists and Hamas supporters for *checks notes* opposing genocide? And what exactly were Kinnock and Thatcher doing to Militant and NUM members if it wasn't demonisation? Has it occurred to you that anger and frustration with the absolute mess "centrists" have made of the country over the last 45 years might be a legitimate response?
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-bunker/who-is-the-real-keir-starmer-9G6CrRo_YnL/
All true.
Will he get extra money for being the presumed leader of "Reform?"
I've never said that it's all one sided. All I'm trying to do is bring some nuance into the discussion, even at the risk of playing Devil's Advocate at times.
Nobody's letting Thatcher or Blair off the hook.
He is merely the Party leader in Parliament and I assume he will have to go and sit near to Galloway and Corbyn
And yes, I can see how irritating it can be. But I don't accept that I only poke in one direction.
Will they want to sit near him?
Or he them?
Their place is on the benches behind the SNP I believe
AIUI, lounging around on park benches is one of the forms of extremism to be outlawed by the tories as soon as they can manage it.
This is because lounging around on park benches is clearly contrary to British Values™, inasmuch as it proves that the loungers are lazy scrotes, unwilling to work, and probably spending their time plotting against the government God has given them.
Lounging (or slouching) on benches within the House of Commons is, however, perfectly acceptable behaviour.
It's all very 'If anything, my biggest fault is that I work too hard'. The few lines from Sienna Rodgers a few years ago still remains more insightful than the 'unauthorised' biography from a former Head of Comms for Labour and People's Vote.
I doubt Starmer will be displeased, as it has led to a round of very sympathetic interviews, and it's instructive to think a little about which other politicians get this kind of treatment: https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1767189100879097958
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/12/labour-calls-on-sunak-to-return-frank-hester-tory-donation
I suspect that icebergs will form in Hell before the tories give any money back, let alone £10m...
The tories can surely only sink as far as the bottom of the shit barrel, so one wonders (with trepidation) what lies even further down. Reform, maybe?
I guess evil racist scumbag Fester was only expressing British Values™...
A friend of Hester and fellow member of the conservative party has extended the theory that he cannot be racist because "He’s an international businessman, he travels widely overseas and does a lot of business in Jamaica"
That's the millionaire capitalist version of "some of my best friends are black", isn't it?
Exactly, and just as worthless as the usual non-millionaire version.
One is tempted to comment that the same could have been said of most 18th century plantation owners…
Or me saying, 'Some of my best friends are Labour Party activists ...' 😉
Which they are.
Indeed.
It's an even poorer defence than it might seem.
Yes, except it's an even weaker statement, because everyone knows that you do business with people that you wouldn't even acknowledge in a social setting.
True enough!
Today he sat next to Galloway.
Appropriate
Which is different to him actually 'wanting' to sit next to Galloway or Galloway wanting to sit next to him. They are both bonkers. Birds of a feather ...
@alienfromzog - was Corbyn sat near or next to either of them?
It looks as if Sunak is still accusing Starmer of serving under Corbyn, but journos seem to think this is now counter-productive. Starmer is developing a line of repartee, I changed this party, he can't, etc. But then who watches PMQs?
Note that she's currently suspended from the Labour Party, pending an investigation appears not to have moved for about 11 months now (this despite apologising and retracting the statement which led to her suspension, which was acceptable in the case of other MPs like Steve Reed, Barry Sheerman etc.)
During prime minister’s questions, the speaker must select MPs from either side of the house on an alternating basis for fairness.
This takes place within a limited timeframe, with the chair prioritising members who are already listed on the order paper.
This week – as is often the case – there was not enough time to call all members who wanted to ask a question.
FWIW.
It may be that the Speaker did not want the House of Toddlers to descend once more into a *discussion* producing more heat than light...but yes, under the circumstances, Abbott should have had the chance to ask her question, After all, she's the one suffering the shite being slung at her by the evil racist tory scumbags.
There was every chance she'd raise her treatment by the Labour leadership and Hoyle was protecting Starmer:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1767907717262320100
Ah yes - I must admit that, when this brouhaha first arose, I'd forgotten that she'd lost the Labour whip a while back.
ISWYM.
Surely if someone has recommended you be executed you should be permitted to participate in the debate about those remarks?
This is both appalling and hilarious. Sorry, not your turn, maybe next week, if you are threatened with death again.
Exactly.
The speaker should have been wise enough to call on her regardless of who else was on the order paper as is his prerogative.
Nothing epitomises the problem better than others being allowed to speak but not the victim.
AFZ
However, I do feel some slight sympathy for the Speaker, caught once more between a rock and a hard place. Had he allowed Ms Abbott to speak, the House might have descended into yet another playground shouting match, but he may have been misguided (in sticking to the rules) rather than malicious.
As to whether he was trying to save Starmer's face, that's a POV, but the coals of fire would surely have been heaped mostly upon tory heads.
BTW, why has evil racist scumbag Fester not been arrested for inciting racial hatred and violence? I wonder if £10million has anything to do with that?
Otherwise it's back bench MPs from both sides.
They are only allowed to speak if called on by the Speaker. To be called on they must stand up.
MPs table questions in advance and get on the order paper. For fairness the Speaker will normally go thru the order paper but he/she does not have to. The Speaker can call any standing MP at any point.
The Speaker got this wrong.
AFZ
The Beeb's guy calculated she'd stood up 37 times. MaryLouise says it was rather more than that.
However many times it was it was way too many. She should have been heard.
I think the Cons should drop him and keep the money. That would be a better punishment than anything else. Take the money and give the contract to someone else.