Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 30.3 % ❤ 2.2 % :thumbsup: 14.6 % 😯 4.5 % :grinning: 34.8 % 🧥 4.5 % 🙏 5.6 % 😟 2.2 % :cry: 1.1 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#597901
Asking this out of lack of knowledge; is Keir good enough to give Boris a torrid time every week at PMQ? And I mean every single week! Not now and then. Constantly!! Is he up there with Blair as an Opposition leader, potentially?

What sort of people are used to dealing with charming slippery sociopathic compulsive liars? Criminal barristers.
Tubby Isaacs, oboogie, Zuriblue and 1 others liked this
#597902
An interesting thing to take away from the Islington North nomination is how bad Emily Thornberry (as Islington South MP) did. Not only fourth place, and eliminated in the first round, but a bad fourth place.
Tubby Isaacs, Arrowhead liked this
#597907
youngian wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:02 pm
Asking this out of lack of knowledge; is Keir good enough to give Boris a torrid time every week at PMQ? And I mean every single week! Not now and then. Constantly!! Is he up there with Blair as an Opposition leader, potentially?

What sort of people are used to dealing with charming slippery sociopathic compulsive liars? Criminal barristers.
He should use that line (if he wins etc).
oboogie liked this
#597911
Catkins wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:03 pm
An interesting thing to take away from the Islington North nomination is how bad Emily Thornberry (as Islington South MP) did. Not only fourth place, and eliminated in the first round, but a bad fourth place.
I tthought she'd have done better all round. Was never going to win it, mind. I wonder if her early 'Talk shit, get sued.' outburst had any bearing.
#597915
That thread's scary enough, isn't it?
#597929
Lend your vote to Emily?
#597934
If true, incredible.



Now, should Momentum get Starmer thrown off the ballot, only RLB will have the financial backing to get the member lists...

Even if that isn't the motivation it's just another disgusting brainfart by the Corbynistas.
Under Labour Party rules, candidates are entitled to access the details of all those who can vote in the contest so they can be canvassed.
But information provided to the campaigns by party officials says: "Prior to receiving this data candidates will be required to sign and return a data sharing agreement and pay an administration fee of £2,500 for each of the list of members and the list of registered/affiliated supporters."
A senior Labour source said the admin charge had been decided by the party's ruling National Executive Council and was set out at the start of the leadership contest.

Ian Murray, who is also running to be Labour deputy leader, also hit out at the £5,000 charge.

He said: "I will be writing to the general secretary to formally raise concerns about this unfair charge and asking her to abolish the charge.

"The Labour Party should not be putting financial barriers like this in the way of people who want the opportunity to stand for party posts.

"It discriminates against grassroots member-backed campaigns like mine, eating up nearly the entire sum that my supporters have generously donated through a crowdfunder."
#597940
First the upset in Islington North, and now this from the CLP with the largest membership in the country:

As noted in the comments, the final numbers were 250 for Starmer vs 155 for Long Bailey i.e. not even especially close.
#597955
Take that Lisa Nandy. :roll:

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot. ... nandy.html
Dear Lisa,

As the candidate of the soft left it would be reasonable to expect your positioning to be situated somewhere between Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer. Yet more than Keir, who seems to say a great deal about nothing and offers fuzzy screen grabs of other candidates' policies when forced into making a commitment, it is you who worries me more. It's not the refugees from the Jess Phillips car crash buzzing around your campaign, nor do I find your role chairing Owen Smith's aborted leadership challenge in 2016 overly bothersome. The issue is the politics or, to be more accurate, your inability to be accurate.

Consider your remarks at last Saturday's hustings in Bristol. On the question of private involvement in the public sector, you said there was a role for business and there's something to be learned from them. Whatever. More troubling was your supplementary attack on top down statism and the assumption it is better than cooperative or municipal ownership alternatives. All very well and good, except that the aim of this criticism - Rebecca Long-Bailey's platform - isn't proposing top down nationalisations either. It was almost as if you were channelling one of Yvetter Cooper's occasional interventions, who also had a problem understanding Labour's nationalisation position. To help aid clarity and save you the time of reading the 2017 and 2019 manifestos, the party then and RLB now is not proposing swapping well remunerated managers in the privatised utilities for Whitehall mandarins, but the democratisation of these services. In other words, making public ownership mean something as the industries are controlled by and run for the benefit of workers and consumers. By all means quibble with the viability and desirability of this policy, but take it on its own terms instead of lying about it.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 60
Sundry far-right groups and parties.

It's as if it's all somehow linked... https://twi[…]

Meanwhile in Australia

Yes, I've seen one or two of those before and they[…]

Oh man, fucking hell. Well, I suppose Keir will[…]

Twat of the Day

"Thicky" Young covets the power and infl[…]