FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rosie duffield
Rosie duffield
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Has she resigned as an MP in which case there's a by election afoot...or has she resigned from the Labour party in which case she's staying as an independent? Difficult to tell from the reports " My apologies, she's staying as an independent MP so not quite the resignation the headline suggested | |||
| |||
| |||
"Once proud party pmsl it hasn't been that for 2 and a half decades,really does make me chuckle that people voted for this shower thinking they were any different to the torys,snouts in the trough no matter what colour rosette there wearing" You annoy me more than the RRs cos you moan for the sake of it. It really is quite abhorrent. #power corrupts. It's not new. | |||
"Once proud party pmsl it hasn't been that for 2 and a half decades,really does make me chuckle that people voted for this shower thinking they were any different to the torys,snouts in the trough no matter what colour rosette there wearing You annoy me more than the RRs cos you moan for the sake of it. It really is quite abhorrent. #power corrupts. It's not new. " Is that an admission that the Labour govt is corrupt? | |||
| |||
"Once proud party pmsl it hasn't been that for 2 and a half decades,really does make me chuckle that people voted for this shower thinking they were any different to the torys,snouts in the trough no matter what colour rosette there wearing You annoy me more than the RRs cos you moan for the sake of it. It really is quite abhorrent. #power corrupts. It's not new. Is that an admission that the Labour govt is corrupt?" There will be corrupt ministers. As there are corrupt politicians. | |||
| |||
"Once proud party pmsl it hasn't been that for 2 and a half decades,really does make me chuckle that people voted for this shower thinking they were any different to the torys,snouts in the trough no matter what colour rosette there wearing You annoy me more than the RRs cos you moan for the sake of it. It really is quite abhorrent. #power corrupts. It's not new. Is that an admission that the Labour govt is corrupt? There will be corrupt ministers. As there are corrupt politicians." Is that a yes? | |||
| |||
" On Starmer she added: "Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives' two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp - this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour prime minister."" Four posts up  | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"She's resigned the whip, so presumably will remain an MP as an independent. Here's what she said :- “The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale, I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.” Oh dear, it's almost as if Rosie has been following the Fab Politics Forum." Her words could apply to any political party in this shit show of a country. | |||
| |||
"Wait until the Labour's new laws to punish the disable come out. They are the same as the Tory ones before the election." There hasn't been a tory party in this country since Mrs Thatcher. Major was a lefty europhile and Cameron, May,Clown show Johnson and Sunkit were all lib dems/ labour. | |||
"Can't wait to see Diane Abbott as PM. I will cancel my Netflix subscription and just stick to watching politics for entertainment." Well it wasn't so long ago that Labour thought Jeremy Corbyn was a fit and proper leader, so don't bet against Ms Abbott. | |||
| |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come." What's your worst case scenario then Ben? | |||
"Once proud party pmsl it hasn't been that for 2 and a half decades,really does make me chuckle that people voted for this shower thinking they were any different to the torys,snouts in the trough no matter what colour rosette there wearing You annoy me more than the RRs cos you moan for the sake of it. It really is quite abhorrent. #power corrupts. It's not new. " awww I annoy you lol ,do u know who annoy me? People who moan about corruption in one political party but Bury there heads in the sand when it's the party they voted for doing it,hypocrisy ain't a good look | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben?" Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can." You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget" Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? | |||
| |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? " They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. " So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." " So your only knowledge about that theory responsible for death of tens of millions is just its dictionary definition? | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. " Do you think after all the recent adverse pensioner fuel cut and gifts debacle, and popularity falling, they have confidence for a tough budget, in the face of two flat months of growth and the expected rate drop did not happen | |||
"Once proud party pmsl it hasn't been that for 2 and a half decades,really does make me chuckle that people voted for this shower thinking they were any different to the torys,snouts in the trough no matter what colour rosette there wearing You annoy me more than the RRs cos you moan for the sake of it. It really is quite abhorrent. #power corrupts. It's not new. " Power corrupts? In that space of time? 😂 At least you now admit that they are corrupt | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." " Ah, the “definition” game again …. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Ah, the “definition” game again …. " Do you not think it's important to know what the word means if people are going to say things like " we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget"? Otherwise it's utterly meaningless. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Ah, the “definition” game again …. Do you not think it's important to know what the word means if people are going to say things like " we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget"? Otherwise it's utterly meaningless." Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer? | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." " Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly?" That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Ah, the “definition” game again …. Do you not think it's important to know what the word means if people are going to say things like " we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget"? Otherwise it's utterly meaningless. Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer?" Yes, meaning he's not a Marxist. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Ah, the “definition” game again …. Do you not think it's important to know what the word means if people are going to say things like " we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget"? Otherwise it's utterly meaningless. Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer? Yes, meaning he's not a Marxist. " Who has benefited from the uneven distribution of wealth from Starmer? | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Ah, the “definition” game again …. Do you not think it's important to know what the word means if people are going to say things like " we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget"? Otherwise it's utterly meaningless. Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer? Yes, meaning he's not a Marxist. Who has benefited from the uneven distribution of wealth from Starmer? " Okay, I'll play the random questions game if you can explain your point or what's the objective of the questions. Fair? Second point, we're you not advocating for ignoring the "moronic nonsense" over on that thread? | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. " Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can." he didn’t con me. I knew he is a liar, as did many others. Only 20% of the public voted for him and his band or merry hypocrite freeloaders. As I’ve said before, his ‘empire’ is built on sand. He is deluded if he thinks otherwise. It’s going to be a bumpy 5 years but I’m pretty certain, this shower of shite will be gone at the next election and Stalin will be gone long before that. Enjoy the ride people | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here." I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. | |||
"It’s going to be a bumpy 5 years but I’m pretty certain, this shower of shite will be gone at the next election and Stalin will be gone long before that." It probably won't be 5 years. If Starmer steps down, Labour will call another general election. I mean, they were very clear on that point when Sunak got put in position, so we won't see Labour just replacing their leader without taking it to the people. They'll definitely call a general election. Won't they? | |||
"Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer?" Yes, but not because of Starmer. Because of Capitalism. Which none of the parties on offer created. . However, whilst none are culpable for the continuation of Capitalism, that does not mean any of the parties could not take it down a peg or two and reframe/realign it. . I think it's dangerous to be so embedded and entrenched in a specific economic model that there is little to no room for alternatives. That affords no flexibility in a rapidly changing and adapting world. | |||
"Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer? Yes, but not because of Starmer. Because of Capitalism. Which none of the parties on offer created. . However, whilst none are culpable for the continuation of Capitalism, that does not mean any of the parties could not take it down a peg or two and reframe/realign it. . I think it's dangerous to be so embedded and entrenched in a specific economic model that there is little to no room for alternatives. That affords no flexibility in a rapidly changing and adapting world." This has got me thinking, great answer | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Ah, the “definition” game again …. Do you not think it's important to know what the word means if people are going to say things like " we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget"? Otherwise it's utterly meaningless. Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer? Yes, meaning he's not a Marxist. Who has benefited from the uneven distribution of wealth from Starmer? Okay, I'll play the random questions game if you can explain your point or what's the objective of the questions. Fair? Second point, we're you not advocating for ignoring the "moronic nonsense" over on that thread? " My question was based on your answer that you agreed Starmer had provided benefits or privileges to individuals. I'm interested in who you see as the recipients. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Ah, the “definition” game again …. Do you not think it's important to know what the word means if people are going to say things like " we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget"? Otherwise it's utterly meaningless. Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer? Yes, meaning he's not a Marxist. Who has benefited from the uneven distribution of wealth from Starmer? Okay, I'll play the random questions game if you can explain your point or what's the objective of the questions. Fair? Second point, we're you not advocating for ignoring the "moronic nonsense" over on that thread? My question was based on your answer that you agreed Starmer had provided benefits or privileges to individuals. I'm interested in who you see as the recipients." Okay but what's this got to do with Labour being Marxist nonsense? To answer, one in mid transaction are the clients of Lexington PR firm. Another could be Sue Gray. | |||
 | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour." Basically, no criticism of labour is allowed! | |||
"Can you see uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in society from Starmer? Yes, but not because of Starmer. Because of Capitalism. Which none of the parties on offer created. . However, whilst none are culpable for the continuation of Capitalism, that does not mean any of the parties could not take it down a peg or two and reframe/realign it. . I think it's dangerous to be so embedded and entrenched in a specific economic model that there is little to no room for alternatives. That affords no flexibility in a rapidly changing and adapting world." So what is your alternative to capitalism then? And how exactly do you go about abandoning it? | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour." Fair enough, let's see what policies emerge in the upcoming budget. Marxism is hardly a random word in the context of Labour - the party was founded by Marxists and still follows much of the doctrine. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Basically, no criticism of labour is allowed! " Did you read my reply? Why have you come to this bizarre conclusion? | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Fair enough, let's see what policies emerge in the upcoming budget. Marxism is hardly a random word in the context of Labour - the party was founded by Marxists and still follows much of the doctrine." That's the point, they don't follow any Marxist doctrine. Saying so just adds to the tidal wave of ridiculous nonsense being levelled. Meanwhile there are genuine criticism is being lost. | |||
| |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! " The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. " *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. " Doesn’t that sound familiar? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. " Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Doesn’t that sound familiar? " Yes it's been going on for the last few months. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist." Where's Starmer going? I'm sure there have been multiple threads about a left wing bogeyman somehow taking control of Labour and then the country. But no one was able to say who or how, or what they might do. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Yes it's been going on for the last few months."
That’s made me laugh, you can’t bring yourself to admit this is exactly what the leftists were doing to the Conservative Party, branding them far right . | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. Where's Starmer going? I'm sure there have been multiple threads about a left wing bogeyman somehow taking control of Labour and then the country. But no one was able to say who or how, or what they might do." It will happen. Just look back at how Ed the Red got to leader, and then JC. FFS! | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist." @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly." What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Yes it's been going on for the last few months.
That’s made me laugh, you can’t bring yourself to admit this is exactly what the leftists were doing to the Conservative Party, branding them far right . "Did that happen to the same extent? To the same level of exaggeration? Of course not. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. Where's Starmer going? I'm sure there have been multiple threads about a left wing bogeyman somehow taking control of Labour and then the country. But no one was able to say who or how, or what they might do. It will happen. Just look back at how Ed the Red got to leader, and then JC. FFS!" I think you're arguing against yourself here. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. " | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Basically, no criticism of labour is allowed! Did you read my reply? Why have you come to this bizarre conclusion? " Because of your defensiveness of everything to do with labour, and a couple of other posters doing the same. Retreat into demanding “definitions” from other posters (an overused tactic), to try to discredit perfectly valid opinions. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Fair enough, let's see what policies emerge in the upcoming budget. Marxism is hardly a random word in the context of Labour - the party was founded by Marxists and still follows much of the doctrine. That's the point, they don't follow any Marxist doctrine. Saying so just adds to the tidal wave of ridiculous nonsense being levelled. Meanwhile there are genuine criticism is being lost. " We’d better not mention the Trots then! 😂 | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Yes it's been going on for the last few months." Months? Ah … let the denial continue … | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. Where's Starmer going? I'm sure there have been multiple threads about a left wing bogeyman somehow taking control of Labour and then the country. But no one was able to say who or how, or what they might do." It will take time. He hasn’t even had his first budget yet. He might last a while if he does enough of what Len tells him to do. | |||
| |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. " Indeed, as we saw with the JC debacle, the UK electorate have no time for 'leftist' politics (Marxism, Socialism, whatever term you want). So the trick is to appear centrist to gain power - as Blair showed us. Starmer was ably assisted by Tory sleaze and general incompetence. The question now is whether we see a creeping leftist agenda by stealth. Time will tell. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. " Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Basically, no criticism of labour is allowed! Did you read my reply? Why have you come to this bizarre conclusion? Because of your defensiveness of everything to do with labour, and a couple of other posters doing the same. Retreat into demanding “definitions” from other posters (an overused tactic), to try to discredit perfectly valid opinions. " So Labour being Marxist is now a valid opinion? That's why definitions are important. Otherwise words are completely meaningless. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait " Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. " Ok rescind the nope but stand by all I said. Labelling (not you) Labour Marxist and conflating Marxism, Communism, Socialism is simply not correct. It’s the whole People’s Popular Front of Judea (he’s over there) argument. Factionalism necessitated by broad church due to FPTP. As I say, that Overton Window is flapping so much, it might come off its hinges! | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling?" It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. " Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, " You've done this before? " observation, " Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? " impartiality, " Lol, good one! " history … I could go on. " Do you have a comparable situation from history? | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Basically, no criticism of labour is allowed! Did you read my reply? Why have you come to this bizarre conclusion? Because of your defensiveness of everything to do with labour, and a couple of other posters doing the same. Retreat into demanding “definitions” from other posters (an overused tactic), to try to discredit perfectly valid opinions. So Labour being Marxist is now a valid opinion? That's why definitions are important. Otherwise words are completely meaningless. " “Marxism has, from the earliest days, always been openly accepted by the Labour Party as one of the sources of inspiration within the Labour Movement.” Tony Benn. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before?" Corbyn. Voters voted for one Labour Party, switched leader, got a completely different one. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Basically, no criticism of labour is allowed! Did you read my reply? Why have you come to this bizarre conclusion? Because of your defensiveness of everything to do with labour, and a couple of other posters doing the same. Retreat into demanding “definitions” from other posters (an overused tactic), to try to discredit perfectly valid opinions. So Labour being Marxist is now a valid opinion? That's why definitions are important. Otherwise words are completely meaningless. “Marxism has, from the earliest days, always been openly accepted by the Labour Party as one of the sources of inspiration within the Labour Movement.” Tony Benn. " Excellent work finding this quote. Any updates on which current labour policies are Marxist? Or any evidence that this word has any relevance? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history?" Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. | |||
"I refuse to believe that most posters did not see this coming and there's worst to come. What's your worst case scenario then Ben? Getting stiffed at the budget and they blame the tories. Pay per mile, I have started to see these cameras that have no use, has anyone else seen them? Council Tax single persons discount abolished. Housing crises to continue. More arms sales, more war. Children still in poverty. Less money for public services. Starmer is a fibber, he conned all, I saw this coming and I said many times Vote for none of them, they will not improve your life, only you can. You missed CGT, IHT, Landlords Tax, VAT, Duties ......... But yes , we can all expect a Marxist shafting come the budget Do you have an example of a "Marxist shafting" that we can expect? They're listed above, although the list is likely incomplete. In a nutshell, raised tax revenues to fund socialist vanity projects. So you simply don't know what Marxism is, or you don't understand Labour policy? To help out: Marxism: "Marxism is a social, economic and political philosophy that analyses the impact of the ruling class on the laborers, leading to uneven distribution of wealth and privileges in the society." Thanks, I thought it was something to do with the Marx Brothers, but your Wiki skills have put me right. Anyway, definition apart, what's your point exactly? That none of what was mentioned is even vaguely related to Marxism. Would you be happier with Socialism? Starmer is a self-confessed Socialist. But I think we are getting into fine distinctions here. I'd be happy with an accurate description of the polices. Throwing random leftist words around interchangeably just devalues any real criticism of Labour. Basically, no criticism of labour is allowed! Did you read my reply? Why have you come to this bizarre conclusion? Because of your defensiveness of everything to do with labour, and a couple of other posters doing the same. Retreat into demanding “definitions” from other posters (an overused tactic), to try to discredit perfectly valid opinions. So Labour being Marxist is now a valid opinion? That's why definitions are important. Otherwise words are completely meaningless. “Marxism has, from the earliest days, always been openly accepted by the Labour Party as one of the sources of inspiration within the Labour Movement.” Tony Benn. Excellent work finding this quote. Any updates on which current labour policies are Marxist? Or any evidence that this word has any relevance?" Thanks | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before? Corbyn. Voters voted for one Labour Party, switched leader, got a completely different one. " Labour weren't in power at the time, Corbyn was never PM. As soon as he started gathering support and momentum, took a large chunk of votes from the Tories, then the press destroyed him. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before? Corbyn. Voters voted for one Labour Party, switched leader, got a completely different one. " But not while in Govt? I’d level the same criticism of the Tories and their unelected PMs (plural). | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. " Asking for examples is "picking holes"? Amazing. Look, if you had any solid arguments that suggested Labour are Marxist, it wouldn't be possible to pick holes in it. You're clearly somehow indoctrinated to think this way, are unable to articulate why. So I'll leave you to it. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before? Corbyn. Voters voted for one Labour Party, switched leader, got a completely different one. But not while in Govt? I’d level the same criticism of the Tories and their unelected PMs (plural). " The point stands. Voted for one party, got a completely different one. Agreed re unelected PM’s. Every time it happened with the tories, labour said they should call an election, so presumably that is what they will do themselves if they switch from SKS | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before? Corbyn. Voters voted for one Labour Party, switched leader, got a completely different one. But not while in Govt? I’d level the same criticism of the Tories and their unelected PMs (plural). The point stands. Voted for one party, got a completely different one. Agreed re unelected PM’s. Every time it happened with the tories, labour said they should call an election, so presumably that is what they will do themselves if they switch from SKS " Ah ok and yes. We get the argument that “you don’t vote for the PM in the UK you vote for the party and the one with the majority appoints the PM” except the media turn UK elections into something akin to presidential elections and focus on the individuals. The reality is many people DO vote for (or refuse to vote for) the proposed future PM. I know plenty of people who said things like “some of those Labour policies look good to me but I could never vote for that Corbyn bloke!” and “can’t really stand the Tories but I do like Boris, he seems like a good bloke” and some such  | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. " It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before? Corbyn. Voters voted for one Labour Party, switched leader, got a completely different one. But not while in Govt? I’d level the same criticism of the Tories and their unelected PMs (plural). The point stands. Voted for one party, got a completely different one. Agreed re unelected PM’s. Every time it happened with the tories, labour said they should call an election, so presumably that is what they will do themselves if they switch from SKS Ah ok and yes. We get the argument that “you don’t vote for the PM in the UK you vote for the party and the one with the majority appoints the PM” except the media turn UK elections into something akin to presidential elections and focus on the individuals. The reality is many people DO vote for (or refuse to vote for) the proposed future PM. I know plenty of people who said things like “some of those Labour policies look good to me but I could never vote for that Corbyn bloke!” and “can’t really stand the Tories but I do like Boris, he seems like a good bloke” and some such "Agreed. And if a governing party is going to change tack, then they should seek a mandate. Blair passing the baton to brown was slightly different as it was going to ne more of the same. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, observation, impartiality, history … I could go on. Jumping in as curious. History? When did this bait n switch happen before? Corbyn. Voters voted for one Labour Party, switched leader, got a completely different one. But not while in Govt? I’d level the same criticism of the Tories and their unelected PMs (plural). The point stands. Voted for one party, got a completely different one. Agreed re unelected PM’s. Every time it happened with the tories, labour said they should call an election, so presumably that is what they will do themselves if they switch from SKS Ah ok and yes. We get the argument that “you don’t vote for the PM in the UK you vote for the party and the one with the majority appoints the PM” except the media turn UK elections into something akin to presidential elections and focus on the individuals. The reality is many people DO vote for (or refuse to vote for) the proposed future PM. I know plenty of people who said things like “some of those Labour policies look good to me but I could never vote for that Corbyn bloke!” and “can’t really stand the Tories but I do like Boris, he seems like a good bloke” and some such
Agreed. And if a governing party is going to change tack, then they should seek a mandate.
Blair passing the baton to brown was slightly different as it was going to ne more of the same. "Huge tensions between Blair and Brown by all accounts. Brown was more left wing than Blair. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely!" Of course there are going to be some with stronger Marxist beliefs/ideologies. The issue is how much influence and power do they have within the party? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely!" Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange " Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong." The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange " Some folk 'in denial' maybe? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? " Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!!" I find it really interesting that calling something far right even if it isn't is generally seen as acceptable. However I very rarely hear things being called out as far left, and if something is called out as far left it becomes a game of semantics in an ever moving landscape of left wing ideology. Both far right and far left are damaging to our society. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!!" Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! I find it really interesting that calling something far right even if it isn't is generally seen as acceptable. However I very rarely hear things being called out as far left, and if something is called out as far left it becomes a game of semantics in an ever moving landscape of left wing ideology. Both far right and far left are damaging to our society." I think one of the problems is that centrists like Starmer get labelled "loony left" "far left" "marxist" etc, as people try to pull the centre of politics further and further to the right. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. " No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! I find it really interesting that calling something far right even if it isn't is generally seen as acceptable. However I very rarely hear things being called out as far left, and if something is called out as far left it becomes a game of semantics in an ever moving landscape of left wing ideology. Both far right and far left are damaging to our society." I think calling things far left is also “insulting” in the UK as calling things far right. To address your point though, I think two things are at play here in the UK: 1. There are distinct flavours of left wing politics that have got clear labels (if confusing for some). Marxism, Communism, and Socialism are different things (in the UK before anyone starts talking about the USSR) with different levels of extremism (ie moving away from the centre). The right wing has less NAMED variants (I think) so it becomes a little more homogenous as you head right. However, the variation is still there. I would say Conservatism is not the same as Facism but suspect there are steps in between that need labels. 2. While we had the Cold War, the UK has never fought a major war against Communism (not counting Korea really). We did fight WW2 against Nazism and Facism and that is still deep in the British psyche. I means (I think) that calling someone a Communist is just water of a duck’s back or mildly irritating. Calling someone a fascist is felt to be a serious insult. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories."This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong." Yes it is. But it is not entirely or exclusively Marxist. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! I find it really interesting that calling something far right even if it isn't is generally seen as acceptable. However I very rarely hear things being called out as far left, and if something is called out as far left it becomes a game of semantics in an ever moving landscape of left wing ideology. Both far right and far left are damaging to our society. I think calling things far left is also “insulting” in the UK as calling things far right. To address your point though, I think two things are at play here in the UK: 1. There are distinct flavours of left wing politics that have got clear labels (if confusing for some). Marxism, Communism, and Socialism are different things (in the UK before anyone starts talking about the USSR) with different levels of extremism (ie moving away from the centre). The right wing has less NAMED variants (I think) so it becomes a little more homogenous as you head right. However, the variation is still there. I would say Conservatism is not the same as Facism but suspect there are steps in between that need labels. 2. While we had the Cold War, the UK has never fought a major war against Communism (not counting Korea really). We did fight WW2 against Nazism and Facism and that is still deep in the British psyche. I means (I think) that calling someone a Communist is just water of a duck’s back or mildly irritating. Calling someone a fascist is felt to be a serious insult." Very good theories and analysis. Thanks | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! I find it really interesting that calling something far right even if it isn't is generally seen as acceptable. However I very rarely hear things being called out as far left, and if something is called out as far left it becomes a game of semantics in an ever moving landscape of left wing ideology. Both far right and far left are damaging to our society. I think calling things far left is also “insulting” in the UK as calling things far right. To address your point though, I think two things are at play here in the UK: 1. There are distinct flavours of left wing politics that have got clear labels (if confusing for some). Marxism, Communism, and Socialism are different things (in the UK before anyone starts talking about the USSR) with different levels of extremism (ie moving away from the centre). The right wing has less NAMED variants (I think) so it becomes a little more homogenous as you head right. However, the variation is still there. I would say Conservatism is not the same as Facism but suspect there are steps in between that need labels. 2. While we had the Cold War, the UK has never fought a major war against Communism (not counting Korea really). We did fight WW2 against Nazism and Facism and that is still deep in the British psyche. I means (I think) that calling someone a Communist is just water of a duck’s back or mildly irritating. Calling someone a fascist is felt to be a serious insult." The left be it socialist, communist or marxist surely want an end goal, after all what is the point of wanting the state to own production and all people to have a shared ownership of produced goods and services? To get anywhere close to this they need to end capitalism, take out the banking systems and remove hierarchy. The issue here is it is a tested and failed ideology. The right wing are also a failed ideology, it is far more accepted as a failed ideology. As much as we need to keep out far right politics, we should also be equally as forthright in keeping out far left. The centre of the road is the perfect place to be and policies should be centre, we can see the problems the tories had with what was seen as ever increasing appeals to the right of centre. I believe Starmer hasn't read the room and this is why he is already under great pressure, and he brought it on himself. | |||
"I means (I think) that calling someone a Communist is just water of a duck’s back or mildly irritating. Calling someone a fascist is felt to be a serious insult." That's because fascism is directly evil. Communism is indirectly evil. If someone asks for people to be killed, he is seen as evil. But if someone asks for something else, the outcome of which is people getting killed, they can easily claim ignorance and wash their hands off any responsibility for that outcome. No matter how many times Marxism is tried, no matter how many millions it kills, leftists will keep using excuses like "Real communism was never tried" or "We just wanted equality. We did not ask for these deaths". | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
"Not sure I follow. Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering). | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering). "Just looked up Deputy PM and it is far older BUT has not been a standing position in all parliaments. | |||
"I means (I think) that calling someone a Communist is just water of a duck’s back or mildly irritating. Calling someone a fascist is felt to be a serious insult. That's because fascism is directly evil. Communism is indirectly evil. If someone asks for people to be killed, he is seen as evil. But if someone asks for something else, the outcome of which is people getting killed, they can easily claim ignorance and wash their hands off any responsibility for that outcome. No matter how many times Marxism is tried, no matter how many millions it kills, leftists will keep using excuses like "Real communism was never tried" or "We just wanted equality. We did not ask for these deaths". " I think globally, and from an academic POV, this is true, but in the UK, and emotionally here, less so for the reasons I said in the post you snip quoted. Fascism was THE enemy, realised through warfare, Communism was the bogeyman during the Cold War. Communism has enough poster boys for title of Evil bastard just like Fascism. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering). "Are you not following because you don't want to follow? A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction. A person high up in the Labour Party can't. According to you. | |||
| |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you. "Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it? I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too! Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question."Which minister has the ear of the unions? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions? "Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around? So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?"You said you didn’t think Rayner had influence, there are many around the forum who don’t seem to understand the makeup of cabinet ministers and Labour Party in general. I’m also very disappointed that you can’t remember that I anticipated Starmer wouldn’t last a term unless he got off to a great start, well before labour were the governing party…. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?"What a surprise that would be eh? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?"Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question."Confrontational? Is that what asking questions and showing you that you're being hypocritical means? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise. "A surprise to you maybe. To others, not so. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise. "You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously? | |||
| |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?""Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism". Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change. | |||
| |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change. "Meaningful change that is leftist only or would you consider right wing too, in being destroyed? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change.
Meaningful change that is leftist only or would you consider right wing too, in being destroyed?"If a right wing party wanted to deliver any meaningful change, the same would happen. The system is set up to persevere itself, keep the money and power exactly where it is now. No threat to that will be allowed. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Confrontational?
Is that what asking questions and showing you that you're being hypocritical means?"Yes confrontational and you just did it again by saying I am being hypocritical AND you ignored my question to seemingly have a dig. So yes, you are being confrontational. I also think you misunderstand what being hypocritical means. I said I don’t think Rayner has that much influence (I may be wrong), and that the Deputy PM role is considered a bit of a fop to pacify extremists. Raab was right wing and oh look, he was made Deputy PM! I also said Home Sec is a more powerful position than Deputy PM. That is a fact. It is. It is the third most powerful role in British govt. Ergo, based on that Braverman would, on the surface, be more influential and powerful than Rayner. That is my opinion. I might not be right. But it is my opinion. Nothing remotely hypocritical about it! So how about answering my question instead of seemingly spoiling for a fight? | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change.
Meaningful change that is leftist only or would you consider right wing too, in being destroyed?
If a right wing party wanted to deliver any meaningful change, the same would happen.
The system is set up to persevere itself, keep the money and power exactly where it is now. No threat to that will be allowed. "I do like FPTP, it protects me from such craziness | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change.
Meaningful change that is leftist only or would you consider right wing too, in being destroyed?
If a right wing party wanted to deliver any meaningful change, the same would happen.
The system is set up to persevere itself, keep the money and power exactly where it is now. No threat to that will be allowed.
I do like FPTP, it protects me from such craziness "Then stop moaning about Labour gettijg rid of Starmer and pulling to the left as that is enabled by FPTP and the need for a broad church (coalition) party  | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?"Starmer definitely made the party look more electable, and with a strong majority they now don’t need to be as restrained. Call that a “conspiracy” if you like. But let’s be honest, it’s not as though there was a huge surge in labour support, they had an increase of 1.6 per cent over the previous election. All that happened is that the Tory vote got split between themselves and Remain, handing a huge majority to labour. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change. "Corbyn was “not allowed” near power? He got almost exactly the same vote as SKS, a tiny difference, 1.6 per cent. Not sure who you think did not “allow” him near power. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
Starmer definitely made the party look more electable, and with a strong majority they now don’t need to be as restrained. Call that a “conspiracy” if you like.
But let’s be honest, it’s not as though there was a huge surge in labour support, they had an increase of 1.6 per cent over the previous election.
All that happened is that the Tory vote got split between themselves and Remain, handing a huge majority to labour. "I know | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
Starmer definitely made the party look more electable, and with a strong majority they now don’t need to be as restrained. Call that a “conspiracy” if you like.
But let’s be honest, it’s not as though there was a huge surge in labour support, they had an increase of 1.6 per cent over the previous election.
All that happened is that the Tory vote got split between themselves and Remain, handing a huge majority to labour. "Making a party 'look' more electable to voters is deception, and arguably a conspiracy. Is Labour a wolf in sheep's clothing? It remains to be seen. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
Starmer definitely made the party look more electable, and with a strong majority they now don’t need to be as restrained. Call that a “conspiracy” if you like.
But let’s be honest, it’s not as though there was a huge surge in labour support, they had an increase of 1.6 per cent over the previous election.
All that happened is that the Tory vote got split between themselves and Remain, handing a huge majority to labour.
Making a party 'look' more electable to voters is deception, and arguably a conspiracy. Is Labour a wolf in sheep's clothing? It remains to be seen."Like Johnson getting the working man’s vote cos he is an affable loveable buffoon you could have a laugh and a pint with down the pub? (Yes that was deliberate whataboutery but only for laughs on this occasion ) | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
Starmer definitely made the party look more electable, and with a strong majority they now don’t need to be as restrained. Call that a “conspiracy” if you like.
But let’s be honest, it’s not as though there was a huge surge in labour support, they had an increase of 1.6 per cent over the previous election.
All that happened is that the Tory vote got split between themselves and Remain, handing a huge majority to labour.
Making a party 'look' more electable to voters is deception, and arguably a conspiracy. Is Labour a wolf in sheep's clothing? It remains to be seen.
Like Johnson getting the working man’s vote cos he is an affable loveable buffoon you could have a laugh and a pint with down the pub?
(Yes that was deliberate whataboutery but only for laughs on this occasion )"Absolutely! Johnson was a self-serving charlatan imho but it's kinda depressing to watch 'squeaky clean' Labour wallowing in the same cesspit. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
Starmer definitely made the party look more electable, and with a strong majority they now don’t need to be as restrained. Call that a “conspiracy” if you like.
But let’s be honest, it’s not as though there was a huge surge in labour support, they had an increase of 1.6 per cent over the previous election.
All that happened is that the Tory vote got split between themselves and Remain, handing a huge majority to labour.
Making a party 'look' more electable to voters is deception, and arguably a conspiracy. Is Labour a wolf in sheep's clothing? It remains to be seen.
Like Johnson getting the working man’s vote cos he is an affable loveable buffoon you could have a laugh and a pint with down the pub?
(Yes that was deliberate whataboutery but only for laughs on this occasion )
Absolutely! Johnson was a self-serving charlatan imho but it's kinda depressing to watch 'squeaky clean' Labour wallowing in the same cesspit."They are hypocrites (the real meaning of the word). They said they would clean up politics and return trust but clearly some still have their hands in the till! It is a shame. I didn’t vote Labour and some of their policies directly negatively impact me (or will) but the Tories had to go and there was some hope Labour would be better regarding cronyism and back handers, oops, donations. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Confrontational?
Is that what asking questions and showing you that you're being hypocritical means?
Yes confrontational and you just did it again by saying I am being hypocritical AND you ignored my question to seemingly have a dig. So yes, you are being confrontational.
I also think you misunderstand what being hypocritical means.
I said I don’t think Rayner has that much influence (I may be wrong), and that the Deputy PM role is considered a bit of a fop to pacify extremists. Raab was right wing and oh look, he was made Deputy PM! I also said Home Sec is a more powerful position than Deputy PM. That is a fact. It is. It is the third most powerful role in British govt. Ergo, based on that Braverman would, on the surface, be more influential and powerful than Rayner. That is my opinion. I might not be right. But it is my opinion. Nothing remotely hypocritical about it!
So how about answering my question instead of seemingly spoiling for a fight?"Calling you hypocritical isn't confrontational. It's my view on your thoughts. What are the rules here, I can't say anything you don't like because that would make me confrontational? As far as Momentum and ERG are concerned, Momentum did hold that much power. Not sure about today but we'll find out, as Labour supporters like to say, it's only been X weeks, give them a chance. BTW, your Raab example is a poor one, Raab held quite a bit of power. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Confrontational?
Is that what asking questions and showing you that you're being hypocritical means?
Yes confrontational and you just did it again by saying I am being hypocritical AND you ignored my question to seemingly have a dig. So yes, you are being confrontational.
I also think you misunderstand what being hypocritical means.
I said I don’t think Rayner has that much influence (I may be wrong), and that the Deputy PM role is considered a bit of a fop to pacify extremists. Raab was right wing and oh look, he was made Deputy PM! I also said Home Sec is a more powerful position than Deputy PM. That is a fact. It is. It is the third most powerful role in British govt. Ergo, based on that Braverman would, on the surface, be more influential and powerful than Rayner. That is my opinion. I might not be right. But it is my opinion. Nothing remotely hypocritical about it!
So how about answering my question instead of seemingly spoiling for a fight?
Calling you hypocritical isn't confrontational. It's my view on your thoughts.
What are the rules here, I can't say anything you don't like because that would make me confrontational?
As far as Momentum and ERG are concerned, Momentum did hold that much power. Not sure about today but we'll find out, as Labour supporters like to say, it's only been X weeks, give them a chance.
BTW, your Raab example is a poor one, Raab held quite a bit of power. "I could ask you to demonstrate my hypocrisy but it will just derail yet another thread with petty squabbling over definitions of words. Feel free to think what you like, but you’re wrong ha ha ha ha | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change.
Meaningful change that is leftist only or would you consider right wing too, in being destroyed?
If a right wing party wanted to deliver any meaningful change, the same would happen.
The system is set up to persevere itself, keep the money and power exactly where it is now. No threat to that will be allowed.
I do like FPTP, it protects me from such craziness "Meaningful change is "craziness"? When we talk about meaningful change, we're talking about a government that serves the interests of the country and the people who live hear, instead of serving the interests of those who donate the most to campaign funds. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change.
Meaningful change that is leftist only or would you consider right wing too, in being destroyed?
If a right wing party wanted to deliver any meaningful change, the same would happen.
The system is set up to persevere itself, keep the money and power exactly where it is now. No threat to that will be allowed.
I do like FPTP, it protects me from such craziness
Meaningful change is "craziness"?
When we talk about meaningful change, we're talking about a government that serves the interests of the country and the people who live hear, instead of serving the interests of those who donate the most to campaign funds. "You are avoiding saying you would like PR so you can get fringe outliers into the decision making, that would be a disaster in this country! Nothing would ever be agreed and the outliers would start to influence the majority, it’s how the left like to work though. | |||
"The Overton Window is flapping like an unsecured shutter in a storm on this thread! The issue of left wing politics is the nuanced definitions placed on splinter groups and foundation ideologies that nobody really understands anymore, mainly due manipulation of terms and people pretending to be anything other than a Marxist or communist. *Mainly due to people either having no clue what Marxism/communism/socialism means, or mainly due to trying to cause panic by labelling the current centrist government as some form of extreme left wing entity. Well let's see if they're still 'centrist' after Starmer departs. btw even Starmer is a self declared Socialist. @NotMe erm nope! There are definitely different ideologies as you head left along the political spectrum just as there are if you head right. Boundaries will be blurred in the UK by the necessities of FPTP needing broad church parties creating factionalism in both Labour and Conservative parties. To say the current Labour party is Marxist is nonsense in the same way as saying (as many did) the Conservative party is fascist. Both have those elements in their party, Labour has Momentum (or had, is that still a thing), the Tories had the ERG (or whatever the latest manifestation is called). What matters is how influential these groups are within the party. I know there are many arguments against Proportional Representation, one of the main ones being the inevitable requirement for coalitions, but this ignores the fact that FPTP creating broad church parties means they are already a form of coalition, but in this case the horse trading is taking place in secret behind closed doors rather than publicly. What do you mean nope? The evidence is all around you in this forum and generally every time you put the news on, people do not understand the difference between Marxist, communist or socialist. I’ve not said the government is anything more than centre, it needed to be get them in power. Yes, needed to look centrist to get in. And at some stage, gradually or suddenly, we will see the “bait and switch” move complete And don’t bother asking me exactly when, exactly how, exactly who … just wait Is there any evidence for this, or is it based on gut feeling? It’s based on experience, You've done this before? observation, Where have you observed this before, can you give an example? impartiality, Lol, good one! history … I could go on. Do you have a comparable situation from history? Sorry mate, mate, I’m not playing your little word games, where you desperately try to pick holes on what other people have posted rather than listening to them. It's just pedantry - a tactic used to deflect an argument by insisting on rigid definitions. It's disingenuous to suggest Labour isn't influenced by Marxism - it was a founding principle of the party. Nowadays, Labour is a fairly broad church, but does it retain a strand of Marxism? Absolutely! Yeah that’s how it feels to me too. Seems to be a huge urge to deny any Marxist influence in the party, which I find strange Not quite seeing that. More a response to sweeping statements like “the Labour Party are Marxist” which is clearly wrong. The same way as leftists continued to call the tory party far right? Out of interest how left do you feel Rayner, Corbyn and Abbott are? Yes plenty called the Tories far right. Some of us said elements in the Tory Party were far right (or further right) and seemed to have undue influence and were pulling the party further right (Braverman was one). My Overton Window is likely positioned differently to yours but Rayner and Corbyn are to me pretty far to the left. May not quite be Communist but heading that way. Abbot isn’t sure what day of the week it is let alone what her ideology is!!!! Surely if you think Rayner is pretty far to the left then that would take the party as a whole in that direction. She is Deputy PM, probably next PM. No and don’t keep calling me Shirley!
I think Rayner was a sop to the left wing of the party (ie internal party politics) in the same way as appointing Braverman was a sop to the right wing in the Tories.
This is where it can get confusing. Rayner is to Labour what Braverman is to Tories. One can pull the party in one direction but the other can't pull the party in the other direction.
Not sure I follow.
Braverman (and her ERG interest group/supporters) had a powerful voice within the Conservatives. Braverman held the No.3 job in Govt (1. PM. 2. Chancellor). In Whitehall the Deputy PM job is seen as a fop and has far less power than Home Sec (pretty sure the post of Deputy PM was invented by the 2010 coalition to give Nick Clegg a role - may be misremembering).
Are you not following because you don't want to follow?
A person high up in the Tory Party can pull in a direction.
A person high up in the Labour Party can't.
According to you.
Why do you always get confrontational? Chill out, none of this really matters THAT much does it?
I didn’t say no influence but I honestly don’t think Rayner has THAT much influence. Maybe I am underestimating her. As it turned out Braverman had less than she thought too!
Do you think Momentum (is Rayner a member? Does momentum still exist?) has more influence over the Labour Party than the ERG had over the Conservative Party? I don’t know, genuine question.
Which minister has the ear of the unions?
Shouldn’t the concern be the other way around?
So are you saying there is a big conspiracy to deliver a marxist government by stealth and the Starmer Trojan Horse? ‘Cos that is feeling like the thrust of some posts around here?
What a surprise that would be eh?
Yes, because there is zero evidence to suggest this will happen. So it would be a surprise.
You'd be surprised at a party who had JC as it's leader just a few years ago lurching to the left? Seriously?
"Lurching to the left" does not equal "Marxism".
Secondly Corbyn was destroyed and not allowed near power, same would happen if anyone was coming up looking to make some meaningful change.
Meaningful change that is leftist only or would you consider right wing too, in being destroyed?
If a right wing party wanted to deliver any meaningful change, the same would happen.
The system is set up to persevere itself, keep the money and power exactly where it is now. No threat to that will be allowed.
I do like FPTP, it protects me from such craziness
Meaningful change is "craziness"?
When we talk about meaningful change, we're talking about a government that serves the interests of the country and the people who live hear, instead of serving the interests of those who donate the most to campaign funds.
You are avoiding saying you would like PR so you can get fringe outliers into the decision making, that would be a disaster in this country! Nothing would ever be agreed and the outliers would start to influence the majority, it’s how the left like to work though.
"What are you talking about "You are avoiding saying you would like PR so you can get fringe outliers into the decision making". You've made up a load of bollocks right there. And isn't that the point, that an element of the electorate have been convinced that any positive changes would just be "fringe outliers". Job done. | |||
| |||
