Keir Starmer - new Labour leader

Agree X it was stupid of RLB to even tweet it, I wonder if she fully read the article before doing so? Given everything that’s gone on with the Labour Party and anti-semitism just why bother with the hassle it was bound to cause.

RLB did clarify the tweet but by that point clearly damage done, Starmer has made a point of being no nonsense on the subject. He does need to work to keep the left on side too though the party needs to unite we can’t swing from one way to the other and completely ostracise a wing of the party again.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree X it was stupid of RLB to even tweet it, I wonder if she fully read the article before doing so? Given everything that’s gone on with the Labour Party and anti-semitism just why bother with the hassle it was bound to cause.

RLB did clarify the tweet but by that point clearly damage done, Starmer has made a point of being no nonsense on the subject. He does need to work to keep the left on side too though the party needs to unite we can’t swing from one way to the other and completely ostracise a wing of the party again.

It's all a game.

One day hopefully you might see it.

I know it effects how the country is run/fits in with the rest of the world and effects all our lives directly but never the less it is a game, strategy, posturing, feigning, rebelling, subjugating, lip service, allowing, taxing, positioning, ignoring, ridiculing, and so on - all to gain power, then to hang on to it.

When can you remember the last time any government did the 'right thing' for it's people, without there being an ulterior motive underpinning it?

Conservatives (unintentionally) caused Brexit simply to play internal politics to silence the Euro-sceptics within their party, Lib Dems committed political suicide when the ditched their main election promise of scrapping tuition fees in order to get in bed with the Conservatives to form a government, Labour led us into a needless war 'Weapons of mass destruction' that caused the vacuum that led directly to IS and the atrocities they brought and all that has flowed from Iraq/Syria since.

Indeed politics even created the map of the middle east and America getting into bed with Saudi Arabia just for the oil there.

It's all about 'power' and the games that are played to get it and keep it.

Obviously I can't do anything about it but I can refuse to get 'wound up' about things and have false belief that one 'side' is better than the other.

Would Hillary been that much better than Trump, or Corbyn superior to Boris - Christ just look at some who have climbed to the top of the greasy pole recently - Ed Miliband, Teresa May, Michael Howard, William Hauge, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable - do you really think they did it on their own ability or perhaps there were others behind them, who 'supported' them for their own reasons?

It's all a game mate and that's why in many non westernised country's once someone gets into power they ensure they stay there indefinitely - Putin (21 years) Xi Jinping (effectively 12 years), Robert Mugabe (37 years) and the house of Saud (around a 100 years!).

It's all about gaining and keeping power.


Do you really think Long Bailey didn't realise the consequence of her tweet (did she even tweet it, don't they employ people/political advisors to run their accounts?) and even if she didn't, don't you think someone on 'her side' wouldn't have let her know immediately?

The tweet was deliberately left there for a reason.

Up to us to guess what the reason was but it deliberately wasn't taken down when it so quickly and easily could have been without causing any fuss.

Sluffy I find your statement that it is a "false belief that one 'side' is better than the other" bizarre. Do you really mean this? Taken to its logical extreme you are saying there is no difference between Hitler and any other politician.

In more practical terms you are equating a Tory party which exists only to help the rich and powerful and a Labour party which does implement measures which help ordinary people. I am not pretending the Labour party is perfect or defending misguided policies like invading Iraq. Even you credit it with the introduction of the NHS but more recently there has been the National Minimum Wage, the Equality Act, increasing real expenditure on education and the NHS (rather than cutting it as the Tories do), etc.
There is a real difference between these parties expressed in terms of what they do.

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I find your statement that it is a "false belief that one 'side' is better than the other" bizarre. Do you really mean this? Taken to its logical extreme you are saying there is no difference between Hitler and any other politician.

In more practical terms you are equating a Tory party which exists only to help the rich and powerful and a Labour party which does implement measures which help ordinary people. I am not pretending the Labour party is perfect or defending misguided policies like invading Iraq. Even you credit it with the introduction of the NHS but more recently there has been the National Minimum Wage, the Equality Act, increasing real expenditure on education and the NHS (rather than cutting it as the Tories do), etc.
There is a real difference between these parties expressed in terms of what they do.

Stop being a troll.

Extremism of any political party or religion is wrong, therefore Hitler (right wing) was no better or worse than Stalin (left wing) (see the Soviet famine an estimated deaths of circa 6-8m people).  I'm not comparing Tony Blair (right wing) to Hitler or Teresa May (right wing) to Stalin and you know it.

Politics is about getting into power and in this country that means by the ballot box.  Of course you have to appeal to the majority voters to win enough seats to do that and in simple terms that's been a class war, the 'needy' v the 'well off' for the last 100 years or so - so clearly you set out your stall to 'attract' what they will vote for you for, rather than your opposition.

The world has moved on since then but the Labour Party hasn't and only gained power in the Blair period my moving it's policies more centrally (and becoming Tory 'lite' if you will) otherwise it's been Conservative rule for more or less 30 of the last 40 years.  

Labour under Corbyn went backwards (hardly believable that they could get any worse but they did!) and lost seats they had never lost before, they were that bad - and totally out of touch with who they thought were their own hard core supporters!

Meaning that the Conservatives really had to do nothing much to stay in power - even as bad as many perceive them to be they are still seen to be better than Labour have been for most of our lifetimes.

It's not really rocket science to see what goes on in politics if you stop having your prejudicial bias to whatever party you believe you should be supporting and take a step back and take off your blinkers.

If you did you would see it for what it is, simply a 'game' to win and retain power.

Any wonder why there's so much lies, corruption and cronyism in politics - Jenrick and the planning application and the bad smell that surrounds it (didn't he break lockdown too?), Cummings certainly did but that was swept under the carpet.  How about 'cash for questions', the expenses scandal (remember the duck house we paid for - and the cleaning of the moat too!) The MP's who lied about who was driving the car to avoid fines, Jeffrey Archer, Plebgate,  cash for honours, Madelson, the list is endless but they all had their roots in seeking or retaining power - usually as a means to enrich/progress themselves (or not to lose the power they had).

So jog on - I've told you I'm no longer playing games on here, I think most are now believing I mean it too.

Tony Blair was in no way right wing.

And I don’t think anyone is under any illusions about ulterior motives - I spend half my time on here speculating about what they are, and this is basic stuff really. 

However, it doesn’t mean automatically that every single action taken by a politician is Machiavellian. I think that’s far too simple.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Tony Blair was in no way right wing.

And I don’t think anyone is under any illusions about ulterior motives - I spend half my time on here speculating about what they are, and this is basic stuff really. 

However, it doesn’t mean automatically that every single action taken by a politician is Machiavellian. I think that’s far too simple.

I meant to put left wing for Blair - obviously, as I was giving examples of opposites and no there are always a few who keep true to their beliefs but in general it is a game, just the same as life is a game - nobody is completely altruistic, we all keep an eye open to better ourselves or our children wherever we can, we tell and live the 'little white lies' to move along, to grease the wheels or keep the peace or whatever it is not to make waves unless it really, really means something to you personally.

I'm sure most of us start out with genuine intentions and beliefs but real life rarely allows us to achieve those without some compromise on our part.  

It's just how it is.

I'm not saying we dump on others to get ahead but there are plenty out there who will take what ever advantage they can of us for their own benefit and that includes voting for someone with a rosette on, who once they get to Parliament are more often than not used as 'voting fodder' as per what their party wants or otherwise they simply don't progress to the point where they can get to the position of power to do things only to find that more often than not achieving power is only half the battle, they now have to keep the people below them in line (and do whatever it takes to keep them there) if they want to remain there.

I ask my rhetorical question again, who was the last leader of a government who truly delivered what they actually believed in?

Thatcher smashing the unions perhaps - if so that was about 30 years ago.

Sluffy it is not being a troll to ask you to justify a sweeping statement that all politicians are the same.

You also ignored the evidence that there is a real difference between what the Tory and Labour parties do when in power.

Finally you do not appear to understand what a troll is. The definition is "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post". How was my post either offensive or provocative?

I’m not one to defend Tony Blair, but he seems to quite clearly disprove your point aside from Iraq - as does Cameron up until Brexit. 

Don’t mean to be dismissive but I’m struggling to see what your point is here Sluffy?

xmiles wrote:Sluffy it is not being a troll to ask you to justify a sweeping statement that all politicians are the same.

You also ignored the evidence that there is a real difference between what the Tory and Labour parties do when in power.

Finally you do not appear to understand what a troll is. The definition is "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post". How was my post either offensive or provocative?

You posted about Hitler and you didn't expect for me to respond!

Pull the other one.

We've been down this path once before and recently too.

We won't be going down it again.

I'm not playing your little games.

I can't make it clearer than that.

Those days have finished - whether you like it or not.

He demonstrated the flaw in your statement, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m not one to defend Tony Blair, but he seems to quite clearly disprove your point aside from Iraq - as does Cameron up until Brexit. 

Don’t mean to be dismissive but I’m struggling to see what your point is here Sluffy?

Blair disproves my point does he?

Even his own biographer wrote about his unpopularity and his eye to make himself wealthy!

The fact remains though that almost a decade after leaving Number 10, Mr Blair's public standing is even lower.

The lack of palpable progress in the Middle East, in Africa, and in world religions, does not of itself explain the hostility.

Rather, it has been his contacts with regimes and individuals of questionable morality, and his money-making activities and his homes, all of which have been regularly aired by a profoundly suspicious press, that seem to have caused the damage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849764

Do you think he had no idea of what his wife was up to?

In 2002, Blair purchased two flats in Bristol with the assistance, it was alleged but later denied, of Peter Foster, a convicted Australian conman and boyfriend of Blair's friend Carole Caplin, who negotiated a discount for Blair. Blair publicly apologised for her embarrassing connection to Foster, stating "I did not think it was my business to choose my friends' friends"

In summer 2015, in the wake of the Hillary Clinton email controversy, Blair was revealed by The Guardian to have lobbied Clinton in 2009 on behalf of prominent members of the Qatari monarchy; Clinton was US Secretary of State at the time. In a letter to the newspaper, Blair denied this characterisation of her mediation efforts, describing their story as "sensationalist and inaccurate". Precisely two months later, the release of another batch of Clinton's private emails confirmed that Blair had, indeed, arranged meetings with Clinton for the Qataris outside normal diplomatic channels, with discussions to involve "the US/Qatar relationship generally", not merely joint philanthropic efforts. In one case, Blair herself stated that her purpose was to help the eldest of Sheikha Mosah's sons, Jasim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, "build up an international profile"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherie_Blair#Controversies

Ok it wasn't him directly but it does question his integrity imo.

Point is as I keep saying politics is just a game - we all do it of a fashion - we just don't all see it for what it is.

Politics
/ˈpɒlɪtɪks/

noun

2 - activities aimed at improving someone's status or increasing power within an organization.
"yet another discussion of office politics and personalities"

I would also argue we do it in our home life too, to get our little ways, or to prevent others getting theirs.  

We learn how to use and manipulate to get our way when we are children, if mum says yes and dad says no, how many of us would get mum to intervene on our behalf - all of us would and probably have.

It's just how we steer our way through life, to survive and hopefully achieve what we want.

If that's not just all a glorified game then what is?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:He demonstrated the flaw in your statement, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

He posted for a reaction first and foremost and of course Labour and Conservative governments do different things - why bother even having elections if whoever gets in say and do the same things as those they've just beat?

That isn't pointing out a flaw.

They differentiate to gain power - and do some of what they say they will do - otherwise no one will vote for them again as per the Lib Dems and their massive U-turn on scrapping student loans, once they went into coalition with Cameron.

You make the totally incorrect accusation that I "posted for a reaction first and foremost" when the reason I posted was simply to ask you to justify your sweeping statement that all politicians are the same.

You now seem to have admitted that they are not by saying "of course Labour and Conservative governments do different things". So it is not a false belief that one side is better than the other.

Asking you to justify what you say is not trolling.

You asked who was the last leader who 'truly delivered what they believed in' - you need to be quoting examples of policies or campaign pledges to justify that, not unpopularity and snide tactics for gaining wealth. 

Again I'm no defender of Blair or Cameron's integrity - I've spent a lot of time questioning it, but it's entirely separate to the question you want answering.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You asked who was the last leader who 'truly delivered what they believed in' - you need to be quoting examples of policies or campaign pledges to justify that, not unpopularity and snide tactics for gaining wealth. 

Again I'm no defender of Blair or Cameron's integrity - I've spent a lot of time questioning it, but it's entirely separate to the question you want answering.

It was a rhetorical question, so I don't have to do anything

Go argue with someone whose bothered or wants to play your games - I'm neither.

I've been reasonable and indulged you so far and yet you still keep pushing.

I couldn't give a toss what Blair did or is doing now but for someone whose name is a dirty word in his own party, whose own biographer admits to how unpopular he's become and his clear thirst to fabulously enrich himself even though he was the Prime Minister for ten years or so for a party who principle aim is for social and economic equality for everyone seems to conflict somewhat with whatever he did at the time I would say.

Believe what you want, canvass for whoever you like, you'll probably just end up like poor Bonce who clearly feels the party he's believed in all this time has changed from one that resonated with him in the first place to one he wants to leave now.

I see it as all a big game.  

If you don't that's up to you.

I won't be losing any sleep over it.

You're welcome to believe what you like, all I'm telling you is you've failed to justify it. Don't know why it needs to turn into a battle to be honest, happy to agree to disagree with you on it.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You're welcome to believe what you like, all I'm telling you is you've failed to justify it. Don't know why it needs to turn into a battle to be honest, happy to agree to disagree with you on it.

Thing is though I don't need to justify it to you or anyone else - what makes you think people need to answer to you?

It's you who turn things into a battles instead of saying something like, "fair enough but I don't agree with you" or something like that.

Christ I didn't even start off to talk about Blair other than to give him as a random example of how stupid it was to compare a party led by Hitler, to a party run by a moderate from an opposition group.

You're the one demanding I put forward examples of polices and pledges from him to defend a question I hadn't even asked in the first place!!!

It's got to stop.

People don't want to read this shit let alone be on the receiving end of it.

The game is over, we aren't here to prove how clever your debating skills are (or whatever it is you are doing) over fuck all, no matter how much you seem to get satisfaction from doing it - it's killing the fun for everybody else on the forum - even Norpig has started posting regularly someplace else now!

When will the penny finally drop with you?

Sluffy wrote:even Norpig has started posting regularly someplace else now!

When did the Bumchums start recruiting outsiders?

Politics has become a strange beast in recent years. As you can assume from my avi, I'm a big fan of Tintin. Nothing wrong with that you might think.
But no, I was accused of having Fascist leanings. You couldn't make it up. OK, Tintin in the Congo is certainly iffy, but was of its time. 
I might add that, as a proud member of the Desperate Dan Pie Eaters Club, I'll take on anyone who attempts to take away his gun. Any man who can smoke a dustbin on the end of a drainpipe is ok with me.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

When did the Bumchums start recruiting outsiders?

This is very concerning. I hope he isn't going on that WW thing. I don't like the cut of their jibs.
Look like the kind of coves who keep a derringer down their socks.