This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Basically tried to appease the Leavers and the Remainers amongst their own party - leaving a very incoherent policy But the policy was electoral suicide. Achieved nothing when put to the ultimate electoral test. With all the facts there. Already in votes case in 2016 and 2019. The task for Labour was not a complex one in what it needed to do. Win a majority of seats in England and Wales. That was it. And by no longer offering to honour the 2016 result, then guaranteeing you could not achieve that. Also, as I grasp the nature of these revelations, a significant amount of the 'worst' culprits from 2017 in terms of the Labour hierarchy who apparently did their best to try and ensure that Labour did not win went on to have roles in the Peoples Vote campaign. Forget 52-48 as the percentages of the referendum. When broken down on a constituency basis it was nearer to 65-35. Meaning that adopting a policy of not honouring that was not only shockingly bad but actually negligent if you want your party to win an election. And these are people who live and breathe this stuff 24/7. Who know the insides and outs of it all. Professionals. Paid, supposedly, to ensure their chosen party does well. Leaving you with two options about Starmer who was the chief proponent of Labours change of stance over Brexit. 1. Starmer is a fool.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
|
Originally posted by Matov
But the policy was electoral suicide. Achieved nothing when put to the ultimate electoral test. With all the facts there. Already in votes case in 2016 and 2019. The task for Labour was not a complex one in what it needed to do. Win a majority of seats in England and Wales. That was it. And by no longer offering to honour the 2016 result, then guaranteeing you could not achieve that. Also, as I grasp the nature of these revelations, a significant amount of the 'worst' culprits from 2017 in terms of the Labour hierarchy who apparently did their best to try and ensure that Labour did not win went on to have roles in the Peoples Vote campaign. Forget 52-48 as the percentages of the referendum. When broken down on a constituency basis it was nearer to 65-35. Meaning that adopting a policy of not honouring that was not only shockingly bad but actually negligent if you want your party to win an election. And these are people who live and breathe this stuff 24/7. Who know the insides and outs of it all. Professionals. Paid, supposedly, to ensure their chosen party does well. Leaving you with two options about Starmer who was the chief proponent of Labours change of stance over Brexit. 1. Starmer is a fool. There is a third option, one that often pops up in Ireland.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
|
A 4th option is that corbyn didnt want to sack abbott so losing was less painful. Skeletons in the cupboard maybe.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Labour Party settles anti-Semitism row by apologising in court. It seems Starmer is continuing his clear out of the "nasty party members". By all accounts the Corbyn club are furious that he has settled. They are furious because they would have won the case. This is insanity. Why on earth would a political party throw in the towel on a case they were likely to win? Labour under Starmer are doing more to convince me of the idea of a 'hidden hand' in British politics than anything else I have ever lived through. People need to put aside Left or Right here. And ask 'why'? This is truly f***ed up.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
|
Originally posted by Matov
They are furious because they would have won the case. This is insanity. Why on earth would a political party throw in the towel on a case they were likely to win? People need to put aside Left or Right here. And ask 'why'? This is truly f***ed up. Why do you think they would win? This court case is more about them scapegoating whistle blowers and various senior Labour leaders trying to assassinate their characters and motives. It's make sense to me that Starmer wants to put this to bed the Human rights commission will find Labour guilty I am fairly sure of that so he is just putting this to bed. Edited by Badger11 (22 Jul 2020 1.42pm)
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Why do you think they would win? This court case is more about them scapegoating whistle blowers and various senior Labour leaders trying to assassinate their characters and motives.
Look below the surface. Look beyond the usual slings and arrows. My understanding is that Labours own lawyers were telling them that they stood a real chance of winning this case. There is a lot more going on here than initially meets the eye. Why on earth would you throw in a winning hand?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Look below the surface. Look beyond the usual slings and arrows. My understanding is that Labours own lawyers were telling them that they stood a real chance of winning this case. There is a lot more going on here than initially meets the eye. Why on earth would you throw in a winning hand? Okay but that is just your opinion based on what? Corbyn supporters will say that so maybe that is where the noise is coming from. I think the answer is more like I said. Starmer wants to put this whole thing to bed there are various strands and when Labour are find guilty of Anti-Semitism (an assumption I know) all hell will break loose. So rather than drag it on he wants it over asap.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Okay but that is just your opinion based on what? Corbyn supporters will say that so maybe that is where the noise is coming from.
Thats a valid question. The only answer I can give you is that by the response from the parties involved, it 'stinks'. Only way to describe it. If you are sad enough to follow this stuff closely you get a feel for it. Bloody daft when I write it down like this and feel free to mock but this goes beyond the usual games. From various accounts I follow and the like, this is not the usual BS. This f***ed up. It really is. I openly admit to a real paranoia about Starmer. I see him as far more sinister that Corbyn ever was, absolutely convinced he was a leading party in deliberately engineering Labours defeat in December. And now throwing in the towel on a court case the party he is leading stood a very good chance of winning, going by what is being said? If Starmer is Labours solution then so far he has cost them an election and now gives in on court cases they can win. Something ain't right.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Thats a valid question. The only answer I can give you is that by the response from the parties involved, it 'stinks'. Only way to describe it. If you are sad enough to follow this stuff closely you get a feel for it. Bloody daft when I write it down like this and feel free to mock but this goes beyond the usual games. From various accounts I follow and the like, this is not the usual BS. This f***ed up. It really is. I openly admit to a real paranoia about Starmer. I see him as far more sinister that Corbyn ever was, absolutely convinced he was a leading party in deliberately engineering Labours defeat in December. And now throwing in the towel on a court case the party he is leading stood a very good chance of winning, going by what is being said? If Starmer is Labours solution then so far he has cost them an election and now gives in on court cases they can win. Something ain't right. I think you have a point about Starmer wanting Corbyn to fail he wasn't the only one. But with regards to the court case some pretty nasty things were said about the whistleblowers which was completely unprofessional. Labour may have won it's case but it would have been a Anyway we shall see no doubt more stuff will leak out.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I think you have a point about Starmer wanting Corbyn to fail he wasn't the only one. But with regards to the court case some pretty nasty things were said about the whistleblowers which was completely unprofessional. Labour may have won it's case but it would have been a Anyway we shall see no doubt more stuff will leak out. Not with the Biased Bullshyte Co you wont, they will suppress it, hide it, accidently fail to report it. They will continue their rhetoric & demand 'everyone' pays for their huge obscene wages so they can *ahem* entertain, inform & educate the population to their wants.
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
Not with the Biased Bullshyte Co you wont, they will suppress it, hide it, accidently fail to report it. They will continue their rhetoric & demand 'everyone' pays for their huge obscene wages so they can *ahem* entertain, inform & educate the population to their wants. When you earn £190,000 pa of course it's good value for money.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Great choice we have, the Prince Regent or Uriah Heap.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Response from the BBC journalist to the idea that Labour had a good case and it was a political decision by Starmer to surrender. Corbyn supporters will disagree of course but it goes to my argument that this case was about how people within the Labour party libelled these 7 individuals rather than is the Labour party anti-Semitic. The BBC is in play now. Defunding it could well be a major manfiesto pledge in 2024 from the Tory side. Starmer is its only real hope of maintaining the status quo. Hence why it will now go to bat fully on Starmers side. Labour could have won that case. That is the point. It utterly capitulated because it wanted to lose. It wants the guilt by way of tainting the left. I am no Corbyn supporter. His brand, and support, from the left are the very anthisis of what I believe and stand for but Starmer represents a much wider and deeper threat. Corbyn, for all his many faults, is a man I believe genuinely values democracy. Believes in the notion of one man, one vote. Where as Starmer patently does not. Only in power. And was willing to sacrfice is own party to achieve that. A man who cannot be trusted, who has not principles and no wider loyaltys other than to himself. A
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
|
Originally posted by Matov
The BBC is in play now. Defunding it could well be a major manfiesto pledge in 2024 from the Tory side. Starmer is its only real hope of maintaining the status quo. Hence why it will now go to bat fully on Starmers side. Labour could have won that case. That is the point. It utterly capitulated because it wanted to lose. It wants the guilt by way of tainting the left. I am no Corbyn supporter. His brand, and support, from the left are the very anthisis of what I believe and stand for but Starmer represents a much wider and deeper threat. Corbyn, for all his many faults, is a man I believe genuinely values democracy. Believes in the notion of one man, one vote. Where as Starmer patently does not. Only in power. And was willing to sacrfice is own party to achieve that. A man who cannot be trusted, who has not principles and no wider loyaltys other than to himself. A I enjoy your posts Matov. I hadn't thought about the BBC angle it wouldn't surprise me the BBC needs all the allies it can get.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
...the BBC needs all the allies it can get. It is s*** or bust time for it. Its funding model is simply no longer justifiable and as for the salaries it pays people, then beyond belief really. There is probably a role for it still at the upper end of the market but that could be funded by subscriptions, adverts and some limited Government funding for some of its news and current affairs output. But in terms of competing with the major commerical channels for mass audiences, then its time has come and gone. When people had limited options in terms of what they could watch it could be justified and even when it at least adhered to the basic principles of fairness, then fine but now? After Brexit and its disgraceful coverage of it all? No. Dead in the water. And a manifesto goal for the Tories. Has to be. Will force Labour into a kind of Brexit quandry again. Membership will be vehmently in support of keeping the licence fee, the votes it needs to challenge the Tories amongst people who would happily see the back of the liceence fee for ever.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.