Angela Rayner

They petitioned last november to get campaign money allowable, raised to £34M. Now fully Intending to spend that amount. Doubled the amount from 2019.
£16M + compared to labour's £12M +.
If that doesnt tell everyone they need to know. As to where those donations come from. They are in denial.
Labour rely mainly on union funding and joe blogs off the st.
I've put my pennerth in.

 

Ideas on health!!!! Privatisation, bought and paid for
https://www.thenational.scot/news/2...akes-175k-donors-linked-private-health-firms/

 

Yep but a lot of people will just assume Labour can be trusted. They can't.

 

I don’t think anyone connected to the Labour leadership can moan about this. They’ve made a conscious effort to attack the left of their party because they’re that far ahead in the polls. They know it will attract negative press but don’t care as they don’t believe they can lose.

 

The fact remains though that the vast majority of the Labour membership are happy with the job Sir Keir is doing, and support his leadership. Otherwise there'd have been a leadership challenge. To say he has expelled sufficient numbers to defeat any challenge would be nonsense, given the size of the membership - even now.

 

They’ve made that decision as the country will not elect a left wing socialist government. Despite quite a lot of people wanting one and even more people needing one.

 

Not for me. They’ve made it because they want total control of the Labour Party. They don’t want any opposition & they feel like they’re that far ahead that they’re untouchable.

Attacking Diane Abbott (or any other MP’s on the left) isn’t about getting elected when they’re already 20 points ahead in the polls. It’s all about power within the party.

 

'They' being the majority on the NEC and the vast majority of the party membership who support Sir Keir's leadership?

 

There's much being said about far left and left of centre. The reality as someone already said is a old style left wing labour party is not going to get elected and policy without power is usless. Blair played the centre ground and got elected and I've heard Starmer described as Blair lite. I do agree that Starmer is eliminating the opposition in his party and moving to the middle ground but I'm not convinced it's a vote loser. I don't actually like him..

 

And you know this because??!!

 

By ‘they’, I meant the majority on the NEC yes. I don’t know everyone on the NEC but Akehurst, Duale and Gurinder Singh are all on there whose politics are indistinguishable from the Tories.

Out of interest how do you know the vast majority of the party membership support Starmer’s leadership? Is there a way of knowing this?

My parents voted for him & have since quit the party.

 

I assume that in the absence of a leadership contest he continues to enjoy the support of the majority of the membership. I see no contrary evidence save for the odd few malcontents.

 

To be honest I’ve never really bought in to the needing to move to the left or to the centre or whatever else. I think the vast majority of people buy into personalities & sound bites.

I was too young to know myself but my parents & grandad were convinced John Smith would’ve been elected in 97 had he not died of a heart attack. He apparently had a big lead in the polls & was far to the left of Blair.

I don’t think Starmer needed to move to the centre this time round. I think with the Tories hitting self destruct & the skin colour of Rishi Sunak (I do believe it’s a huge factor) he could’ve had a manifesto to the left of Corbyn’s & still got elected.

 

I know nothing mate. I only express opinion and usually try to explain it. In this instance my observations of Starmer lead me to conclude he's not to be trusted and my knowledge of Streeting and his links to private health lobbyists lead me to similarly distrust him. If you have a different opinion or simply think there's no better alternative that's up to you. Cheers.

 

Having a subjective opinion is your prerogative I guess. But I sit here wondering how bad a government objectively has to be before the country is convinced that a change is absolutely necessary. As far as I am concerned, Starmer has to be more trustworthy than the set of corrupt incompetents that have led this country into the hole it now sits in. As for Streeting, are you honestly of the opinion that he is a bigger risk to the NHS than the current mob?

 

I agree that the Tories are an absolute disgrace and its perfectly plausible that Starmer will run things more competently even if theres a lack of the radical change that I would prefer. As for Streeting its also possible that he will end up rebuilding the NHS. All I'm saying is that he can't be trusted. That's all. I'm suspicicious and nervous basically. Proof of the pudding.....

 

How can the membership trigger a leadership vote , he silenced or culled all decenting voices in the parliamentary members

 

If there was widespread discontent one would assume members would petition one or more MP's to mount a leadership challenge. I think the idea he has banished all potential dissenters is a myth. But I wouldn't expect him to prefer them for shadow (or actual) cabinet positions. In my humble opinion, Sir Keir has the potential to become as great a leader as Tony Blair.

 

I see Angela has become a fully fledged politician in the last 24 hours. Now claiming she’s never been against nuclear weapons…

They’re all liars. Regardless of rosette.

 

The only small hope of Stammer becoming anything but a conduit for big business, hedge fund interests and John Majorist is he is lying to the electorate like he did in the party leadership contest and suddenly becomes a traditional Labour leader bringing back utilities and transport into public ownership and hammering the obscenely rich with an immediate wealth tax