news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

44 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

I am sorry Steve but what is your point. Is it 10 MP's back a fringe group or is it goes against your views on gender (not trans) equality. This could be an entire thread of its own but seeing as the group involved has just over 2000 FB followers I think they are a very small minority. I troll conspiracy FB pages and one in the UK about chemtrails has over 11k followers. Maybe look into that. It's fun.

Only point is yet another potential problem for labour at conference this autumn.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Only point is yet another potential problem for labour at conference this autumn.

Is it a problem though? This article is based on a short letter sent to the Observer. I am amazed the Guardian site have even given it some traction. Guess it was a slow news day and they need to watch more football.

[steviewevie]

29 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

Is it a problem though? This article is based on a short letter sent to the Observer. I am amazed the Guardian site have even given it some traction. Guess it was a slow news day and they need to watch more football.

It could be...a number of MPs unhappy...maybe some members will be...it definitely isn't nothing..

[pink_triangle]

54 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

Is it a problem though? This article is based on a short letter sent to the Observer. I am amazed the Guardian site have even given it some traction. Guess it was a slow news day and they need to watch more football.

I agree. It's one of those issues that people will tweet about, but won't be on the radar of most voters.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It could be...a number of MPs unhappy...maybe some members will be...it definitely isn't nothing..

I am not saying it is nothing but it is a side show. Labour has many groups on the fringe meetings of conference. Groups like CND have been relegated to that. Labour need to cut away from fringe politics and concentrate on the main issues. Although not fringe discussing Israel and Palestine at conference under Corbyn did not go down so well. 

 

Off topic but on the CND front I am a bit of a hypocrite. I joined just to get a job at Glastonbury (£9 a year). I am a bit wierd on that I did not agree with the Dreadnaught contract for our nuclear deterrent. I am a believer in MAD and with the warheads we have atm we should be using that threat. We are cutting our armed forces to a stupid level. Let's face this and I am serious what's worse. A nuclear winter or burning to death.

[Guest]

He’s clearly lost the plot now. 

[Neil]

On 7/29/2022 at 11:32 AM, mattiloy said:

I’m noticing a lot of Lib commentators, the likes of James O’Brien, starting to talk up nationalisation of energy as if they just invented the idea whilst *almost slagging off Starmer for not backing proper wage rises for workers.

And you know what, fine, all for personal growth. But it is quite remarkable.

Maybe it takes things getting really shit to make the libs realise that just because they did alright, that in fact the unfettered market doesn’t actually work.

Who knew that the idea of free energy would be popular. 

[squirrelarmy]

Just seen this about Sam Tarry. Any truth in it?

https://v.redd.it/s8qeoz7bc2f91

[steviewevie]

30 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Just seen this about Sam Tarry. Any truth in it?

https://v.redd.it/s8qeoz7bc2f91

If it's on Reddit it must be true.

[squirrelarmy]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

If it's on Reddit it must be true.

Basically it shows that Tarry is just a poundshop Corbyn who is out to cause trouble. 

It’s stunts like this which means we’re stuck with the Tories. It’s tough enough for the opposition anyway due to the media bias but constantly giving them open goals is crazy. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

Basically it shows that Tarry is just a poundshop Corbyn who is out to cause trouble. 

It’s stunts like this which means we’re stuck with the Tories. It’s tough enough for the opposition anyway due to the media bias but constantly giving them open goals is crazy. 

It wouldn’t surprise me if it was true but your point about the left making it tougher for Labour is completely true. 

[Neil]

28 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It wouldn’t surprise me if it was true but your point about the left making it tougher for Labour is completely true. 

they keep on making 'perfect' the enemy of 'better'.

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

 

what's important is not allowing the tories to blame any strike on the labour party, which is done by being behind the strikers demands.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

what's important is not allowing the tories to blame any strike on the labour party, which is done by being behind the strikers demands.

Yeah well, they're not all sticking to it. I guess main difference is they're not doing loads of media to publicise it, giving themselves promotions and making up policy.

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by steviewevie

[Neil]

10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yeah well, they're not all sticking to it. I guess main difference is they're not doing loads of media to publicise it, giving themselves promotions and making up policy.

 

matey was sacked for unauthorized interviews, not for visiting pickets.

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, Neil said:

matey was sacked for unauthorized interviews, not for visiting pickets.

Yeah, but they're not supposed to join picket lines...I guess Nandy is visiting and not really joining them..but she is still showing support, and it is definitely a statement by a shadow cabinet bigwig.

[Neil]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yeah, but they're not supposed to join picket lines...I guess Nandy is visiting and not really joining them..but she is still showing support, and it is definitely a statement by a shadow cabinet bigwig.

nandy strikes me as management-smart, and will be able to eloquently say why her visit was inside the rules.

[mattiloy]

53 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yeah well, they're not all sticking to it. I guess main difference is they're not doing loads of media to publicise it, giving themselves promotions and making up policy.

 

Rachel Reeves made up policy on the hoof in the media just last monday, claiming Labour were against rail nationalisation which caused different people in the party to then flip flop all day, i think eventually settling on some kind of non committal ’we’re not against it, its not a priority’ type position.

The difference between Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Sam Tarry is that Sam Tarry is a socialist.

Although I do wonder if Nandy got this signed off ahead of doing it. If not, given it comes after the whole debacle and after that puff piece interview in the new statesman you shared in which she quite overtly stated her continued ambition to get to the very top - then I guess it could be seen as a bit provocative 

[Guest]

Rachel Reeves didn’t make up policy on the hoof, she got one part of it wrong and that was clarified after. 

[Guest]

Ipsos are one of the most reliable pollsters too. 

[mattiloy]

19 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Rachel Reeves didn’t make up policy on the hoof, she got one part of it wrong and that was clarified after. 

Lol. She said that Labour had a policy of opposing rail nationalisation when that was in fact not their policy.
 

Making up policy on the hoof.

[Guest]

Just now, mattiloy said:

Lol. She said that Labour had a policy of opposing rail nationalisation when that was in fact not their policy.
 

Making up policy on the hoof.

She got that part wrong as she didn’t hear properly. It was later clarified.

She didn’t make up policy. 

[mattiloy]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

She got that part wrong as she didn’t hear properly. It was later clarified.

She didn’t make up policy. 

What policy did Sam Tarry make up by the way? 

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

What policy did Sam Tarry make up by the way? 

workers should be offered pay rises in line with inflation