OT - Politics. Which of these potential leaders would you vote for?

So when are you planning to dazzle us all with your ‘theory’?

 

Boris he is an avid reader but does not post.

 

So a decade ago someone said a Lib Dem government would scrap tuition fees and that's enough to call them all the bar stewards? Forgetting the fact we never got a Lib Dem government in the first place, you're still going to hold them to that?

Labour get us into an illegal war based upon information gained from torture which kills hundreds of thousands and leads to the rise if ISIS and as for the tories, well, i would't trust a tory as far as I could throw them but yeah those evil Lib Dems. It's as if the right ring press don't like a pro europe progressive party and you've bought it hook line and sinker.

 

Bang on. The right & centre of the Labour Party are ridiculous. War mongers calling others extremists & cranks whilst they’ve brought absolute chaos to the Middle East.

I’d take hard left ‘cranks’ who want decent living standards & a reasonable minimum wage or Lib Dem’s who were anti-Brexit over these idiots that call themselves moderates every day of the week.

Spent 5 years sabotaging their own party & even when they get the leadership they have no principles & no policies. Constantly missing open goals against the Tories.

Giving interviews to the media & been shown up daily for been completely unprepared. And to think these jokers call themselves the grown ups.

 

Did the labour government of the time torture that information out themselves or did they just act on intelligence given to them?

 

Yeah think Andy Burnham would be my shout at the moment. Although from that list and just judging from personal dealings with him I would give Dan Jarvis a crack at the job as well.

 

The trouble with separating anti semitism from all forms of racism is the Israeli situation . For some, you criticise Israeli policies against the Palestinians and you're being anti semitic. But you are correct, unequivocally anti semitism is wrong.

 

The worst thing the lib-dems did was screwing up their opportunity for electoral reform.

 

Ken Loach on Starmer

 

The Starmer lovers should have a read. Mind you when they do it'll still be 'good old Keir'. Broad church my arse.

 

An electable church is better than a broad church. Not sure why Loach's verdict should be given any credence. He has a long history of association with the left wing fringe organizations and opposing Labour Party leaders.

 

The Labour 'church' has often been quoted as 'broad' by it's leaders (Symonds actually said it was today) and is a stronger more electable one if it unites rather than pushes people away. There will be bad consequences down the line for Labour because of Starmer's lies.
Loach's views have as much credence as anyone else's unless he's incorrect in his factual statements ( which I don't believe he is). Can't see the problem with acknowledging someone liKe Loach regardless of whatever his past record is. If Johnson actually spoke the truth it would be incumbent on people to admit that he had in fact spoken the truth.

 

"Motions critical of Starmer or supporting his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, are ruled out of order, and constituency party chairs who allow them to be debated are suspended."

So that's the kind of 'unity' Ken Loach wants? Wasn't Starmer elected leader under the same mechanism as Corbyn? So why should the party in it's various groupings be wanting to debate dissing the present leader and bunging up the previous one? I must have missed something!

 

all Starmer had to do was announce Corbyn gets the Labour whip back in the Commons at the beginning of the Conference and then he could have claimed he was uniting the party ,instead he’s strutting about with the vile Mandleson provoking arguments with the left . He stood as leader on a totally different platform and agenda , he lied to those who were prepared to take him at his word

 

I think you've missed my point Mr Kaht. The Labour Party under Starmer does not appear to be this 'broad church' at all does it?. And what is your view about Starmer lying to get elected? Do you think that's a good thing?
As to your points, Labour conference is a complex beast and yes, there needs to be some discipline about what motions are allowed but a) is it surprising after Starmer's actions that some people are showing support for Corbyn? and b) Is further suspension really a sensible way to deal with party members? Personally I think it's further poor leadership and further proof that it's he that is damaging the party. I would like to know your views about his lies though...

 

Who is Someome Else?

 

Young Nudger.

 

Are you sure?

It sounds like an African name to me.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'his lies'. I assume you are referring to uniting the party? If that is what you are referring to (and apologies if it's not) then I think it's rather more complex than that. You can't guarantee that you will unite the party because it takes at least two factions to agree to be united. You can only state that it is your intention to unite the party. That is how I would have read his comments. Therefore I would take the view that that is not a statement that can give rise to a lie. You can only lie by means of a statement that you know to be untrue. You can't know in advance that your efforts to unite the party will or won't succeed, only that it is your intention that they do.

Turning to those he would have liked to unite, it is reported that he spoke with Corbyn immediately before the publication of the EHRC report and agreed that there would not be further comment, particularly adverse, regarding the findings. Corbyn immediately went out and said that the issue was overplayed for political purposes. He need have said nothing. The decision to suspend him was not taken by Starmer alone, just as any continuation or making permanent of that suspension will be. But you can only imagine the frustration of the entire current party hierarchy that Corbyn undermined the attempt to put this issue - which has so dogged the party for the last several years - firmly behind it.

 

He did say he was the unity candidate and he would unite the party, yes you're right, therefore it is incumbent on HIM to do that. Yes other groups in the party have to be part of the unification process but to unify it's poor to kick people out and suspend. Unifying by expulsion...great idea.Starmer lied specifically though with his pledges to continue many of the socialist commitments outlined in the 2019 manifesto. If you're not sure what I mean please check up. He lied to get people on the left to vote for him. That's why there is so much discontent from the left of the party. People don't like being lied to. I'll ask again..do you think it was good of him to lie to people to get elected? One example for you to focus on... he said he would bring back utilities into public ownership during his election. On the Andrew Marr show he said he wouldnt be doing that. That's lying in my book. What do you think? The guy is a liar. Straight out of the Johnson handbook. If you think that's good then that's up to you. He's damaging the party to try and look tough. As I said before he's a fool.