Rebbeca Wrong Daily

[BenGarfield]

That's not what I'm saying. It would be idiotic for them to nail their vote to the mast 4 years before the election, when for all they know the party may decide to change direction in that time, or another party may change theirs and become more appealing.

I dont think the green party is likely to change direction, it would be self defeating.

 

[Seagull27]

I dont think the green party is likely to change direction, it would be self defeating.

But you just don't know what is going to come up in the next few years to even know if you would support them anymore!

If the Labour party for example decided they were going to take on a large number of Green Party policies - you'd want the chance to change your mind and vote Labour wouldn't you, to give more chance of those policies being enacted?

Or, for the ardent Brexit voter this time last year they probably couldn't see themselves voting Tory. That changed when the party abandoned May and her Brexit deal.

The enthusiastic Lib Dem student voters in 2010 probably couldn't see themselves backing anyone else, yet just a few months later they wanted nothing to do with them.

Things can change massively in each party and their direction. Green party included. So to back them that certainly at this point would be mad. And that's not even taking into account variations in support locally, and how that influences your vote.

 

[A1X]

So are you arguing that all members of political parties who are unlikely to win a general election should resign from their party?

No. But when a leadership for a main party is tanking it needs to take responsibility and act in the best interests of their party. That's how leadership works.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

What was his argument?

He was going on about understanding the kids feelings and how the authority's shouldn't be so hard on them despite all the shit they'd left on the lawns and the disruption to the local people in that area
Regards
DF

 

[Weststander]

John Lansman was on R5 this morning suggesting Sakeeer’s decision will divide the part rather than unify.

Well the LP was hugely divided in the Corbyn era, so Lansman should be able to spot that. I loved the passion of Alan Johnson (tears in his eyes), putting Lansman straight on ITV on Election Night.

 

[Chicken Run]

Well the LP was hugely divided in the Corbyn era, so Lansman should be able to spot that. I loved the passion of Alan Johnson (tears in his eyes), putting Lansman straight on ITV on Election Night.

I too enjoyed that, almost as much as the binfest that erupted on GMB with the Labour luvvies tearing into each other[emoji23]

 

[Theatre of Trees]

But his failure to sack Cummings has already affected his ratings. People may not watch PMQs but they do notice when a leader wavers, dithers and fails to act on wrong doing - and, conversely, notice when a leader is strong.

This and it has not gone unnoticed in his own party either.

 

[amexer]

Looks harsh to me. Appointed her to shadow cabinet to show willing to listen to all but am sure was never going to need much of an excuse to get rid

 

[Danny Wilson Said]

They'll be lurking around like a bad smell a bit like SWP, I listened to some labour clown from Hove on the news last night defending the scrotes playing up on the lawns , unbelievable !
Regards
DF

The Brighton and Hove Labour party are dismal. They'd rather a Tory had been elected than Peter Kyle. Their noise-makers such as Johnbosco Nwogbo and Greg Hadfield are at each others' throats about which version of Momentum is more right-on. If it was one of them, their opinions should (and will) be disregarded by all and sundry. They don't speak for the average Labour voter, I'm sure.

On Long-Bailey, not only did the Maxine Peake interview she retweeted contain the accusation that the Israeli secret services had trained the Minneapolis police but it was also highly critical of Starmer. Her actions were unwise enough to cast doubt on her judgment. I suppose she could have been warned, but she gave him a decision to make that she didn't need to.

 

[Bakero]

The Brighton and Hove Labour party are dismal. They'd rather a Tory had been elected than Peter Kyle. Their noise-makers such as Johnbosco Nwogbo and Greg Hadfield are at each others' throats about which version of Momentum is more right-on. If it was one of them, their opinions should (and will) be disregarded by all and sundry. They don't speak for the average Labour voter, I'm sure.

On Long-Bailey, not only did the Maxine Peake interview she retweeted contain the accusation that the Israeli secret services had trained the Minneapolis police but it was also highly critical of Starmer. Her actions were unwise enough to cast doubt on her judgment. I suppose she could have been warned, but she gave him a decision to make that she didn't need to.

Highly critical?

“You know what, at the end of the day, all I want is the Tories out. I think people will get behind Starmer, won’t they? He’s a more acceptable face of the Labour Party for a lot of people who are not really left wing. But that’s fine. Whatever. As long as the Tories get out, I don’t care anymore. You can’t be sad, you’ve just got to get on and organise, without standing at the rooftops and going, ‘You reap what you sow!’ There were moments when I wanted to scream that,” she adds with a doleful laugh, “but no, we’ve got to keep moving forward.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...keir-starmer-black-lives-matter-a9583206.html

 

[BenGarfield]

The Brighton and Hove Labour party are dismal. They'd rather a Tory had been elected than Peter Kyle. Their noise-makers such as Johnbosco Nwogbo and Greg Hadfield are at each others' throats about which version of Momentum is more right-on. If it was one of them, their opinions should (and will) be disregarded by all and sundry. They don't speak for the average Labour voter, I'm sure.

On Long-Bailey, not only did the Maxine Peake interview she retweeted contain the accusation that the Israeli secret services had trained the Minneapolis police but it was also highly critical of Starmer. Her actions were unwise enough to cast doubt on her judgment. I suppose she could have been warned, but she gave him a decision to make that she didn't need to.

Kyle is effectively a Tory anyway, so Im sure Brighton and Hove Labour party would rather have a democratic socialist.

 

[neilbard]

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Taken from blogger Another Angry Voice... regardless of whether you think Starmer was right to sack RLB, an interesting comparison is drawn here with Reeves... make of it what you will.


I've tried to give Keir Starmer the benefit of the doubt as Labour leader, but his absurd decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey over an article she shared on Twitter is not just profoundly hypocritical, it's strategically inept too.

The stated justification for the sacking is that the article supposedly contained an antisemitic conspiracy, but what it actually contained was a criticism of Israeli brutality.

Conflating criticism of Israel with attacking Jews in general is actually a grotesquely antisemitic thing to do, because when someone like Starmer pretends that criticising Israel is the same as bigotry against all Jews, it basically erases all Jews who oppose Israeli brutality from the narrative, and implies that the systemic violence of the Israeli occupation is 'the responsibility of Jews', rather than 'the responsibility of the Israeli government'.

Starmer insists that he has a zero tolerance attitude to antisemitism, but this is a flat out and undeniable lie.

In April this year the right-wing Labour MP Rachel Reeves embarked on an utterly bizarre online campaign to whitewash the reputation of the vile Tory antisemite Nancy Astor.

Astor was an absolutely disgusting individual who championed Nazi Germany in the 1930s, described Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to the "world problem of Jews", and also indulged in grotesque displays of classism, and anti-black racism too, to the extent of telling a room full of black Americans that they should be "grateful" for slavery!

If Starmer was serious about this claimed "zero tolerance" policy towards antisemitism, there's absolutely no way that he would have handed a cabinet position to Reeves, within weeks of her depraved campaign to whitewash the legacy of one of Britain's most despicable antisemites.

The reality of course is that Starmer is simply using antisemitism as a political football.

If someone on the Labour right glorifies a despicable antisemite, they get a total free pass, and an invitation to join the shadow cabinet.

If someone from the Labour left shares an article that contains criticism of the Israeli state (not Jews) they get instantly driven out of their job.

This brazen disparity exposes Starmer's promises to pursue party unity as a flat-out lie too.

Starmer has simply proven what an awful lot of people on the Labour left have been saying for years. The antisemitism furore is just an excuse to attack socialists, and intimidate ordinary people out of criticising the barbarity of the Israeli regime.

It has nothing to do with actually confronting anti-Jewish bigotry, otherwise Rachel Reeves would never have been given a cabinet position after her sickening hagiography of a disgusting anti-Jewish hate-monger.

 

[Bakero]

Taken from blogger Another Angry Voice... regardless of whether you think Starmer was right to sack RLB, an interesting comparison is drawn here with Reeves... make of it what you will.


I've tried to give Keir Starmer the benefit of the doubt as Labour leader, but his absurd decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey over an article she shared on Twitter is not just profoundly hypocritical, it's strategically inept too.

The stated justification for the sacking is that the article supposedly contained an antisemitic conspiracy, but what it actually contained was a criticism of Israeli brutality.

Conflating criticism of Israel with attacking Jews in general is actually a grotesquely antisemitic thing to do, because when someone like Starmer pretends that criticising Israel is the same as bigotry against all Jews, it basically erases all Jews who oppose Israeli brutality from the narrative, and implies that the systemic violence of the Israeli occupation is 'the responsibility of Jews', rather than 'the responsibility of the Israeli government'.

Starmer insists that he has a zero tolerance attitude to antisemitism, but this is a flat out and undeniable lie.

In April this year the right-wing Labour MP Rachel Reeves embarked on an utterly bizarre online campaign to whitewash the reputation of the vile Tory antisemite Nancy Astor.

Astor was an absolutely disgusting individual who championed Nazi Germany in the 1930s, described Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to the "world problem of Jews", and also indulged in grotesque displays of classism, and anti-black racism too, to the extent of telling a room full of black Americans that they should be "grateful" for slavery!

If Starmer was serious about this claimed "zero tolerance" policy towards antisemitism, there's absolutely no way that he would have handed a cabinet position to Reeves, within weeks of her depraved campaign to whitewash the legacy of one of Britain's most despicable antisemites.

The reality of course is that Starmer is simply using antisemitism as a political football.

If someone on the Labour right glorifies a despicable antisemite, they get a total free pass, and an invitation to join the shadow cabinet.

If someone from the Labour left shares an article that contains criticism of the Israeli state (not Jews) they get instantly driven out of their job.

This brazen disparity exposes Starmer's promises to pursue party unity as a flat-out lie too.

Starmer has simply proven what an awful lot of people on the Labour left have been saying for years. The antisemitism furore is just an excuse to attack socialists, and intimidate ordinary people out of criticising the barbarity of the Israeli regime.

It has nothing to do with actually confronting anti-Jewish bigotry, otherwise Rachel Reeves would never have been given a cabinet position after her sickening hagiography of a disgusting anti-Jewish hate-monger.

A lot of truth in that but I don't see it as strategically inept. He's trying to show strength and appeal to the centre ground. Of course it won't go down well with the left but presumably that's a calculated risk he's willing to take.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

A lot of truth in that but I don't see it as strategically inept. He's trying to show strength and appeal to the centre ground. Of course it won't go down well with the left but presumably that's a calculated risk he's willing to take.

There was more to the blog post that I didn’t include. In summary, it draws a comparison with Blair and how he would never have drawn attention away from a Tory scandal (Tory donor being aided in avoiding 40m tax) by firing RLB, this being the crux the claim that Starmer is strategically inept.

 

[Bakero]

There was more to the blog post that I didn’t include. In summary, it draws a comparison with Blair and how he would never have drawn attention away from a Tory scandal (Tory donor being aided in avoiding 40m tax) by firing RLB, this being the crux the claim that Starmer is strategically inept.

Ah, ok. With the added context it makes more sense.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, the focus has now shifted elsewhere:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...emn-nigel-farage-for-antisemitic-dog-whistles

 

[Machiavelli]

its quite thin link on the surface, a suggestion restraint techniques used in George Floyd death comes from Israeli security. however why is that link necessary, is it any importance to his story? so the implications are there to be made. think the more significant part of the story is Long-Bailey didnt remove the tweet once pointed out, putting focus on it and cant be brushed aside. and probably about authority too.

I asked NSC for an explanation as to why Peake's comment constituted circulating Jewish conspiracy theories, and have now found some decent arguments to sustain that claim (and against it). FWIW, I read and wasn't convinced by the Jonathan Freedland that these letters respond to:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/28/long-baileys-dismissal-gives-cause-for-concern

 

[Bold Seagull]

There was more to the blog post that I didn’t include. In summary, it draws a comparison with Blair and how he would never have drawn attention away from a Tory scandal (Tory donor being aided in avoiding 40m tax) by firing RLB, this being the crux the claim that Starmer is strategically inept.

Wasn’t just a criticism of Israeli state brutality, it was an inference that Israel was somehow in control of or influencing police racial violence in another country - this is a tacit endorsement of a worldwide influence that does skirt into conspiracy.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Wasn’t just a criticism of Israeli state brutality, it was an inference that Israel was somehow in control of or influencing police racial violence in another country - this is a tacit endorsement of a worldwide influence that does skirt into conspiracy.

That may well be the case, but if the crux of the issue is genuinely anti-semitism and not an attempt to rid the party of the remaining left wingers who were pro Corbyn, why didn’t Starmer fire Reeves for celebrating and attempting to white wash the history of renowned anti-Semite Nancy Astor?