Ken Loach expelled from the Labour Party

[SuperStu]

Good post that Lefty

No opposition anywhere does well in a national crisis such as a war or a pandemic. Not anywhere. If you think they do you are ignoring the real.

But you're wrong on this. Trump lost the presidency and congress in the USA mid pandemic so it obviously can happen.

It is way too early to judge Starmer

Whereas Starmer only became an MP in 2015. So people should cut him some slack just for that. He is on a steep learning curve even if he had just been a constituency MP.

This is a cop out as well. Especially if you're then going to highlight his intelligence and political nous steering the party in to opposing remain.

6 years as an MP and however long before that as a member/supporter is plenty of time to understand what the party is. He can't be expelling members, shutting down CLP meetings and withdrawing the whip from leading MPs and then using inexperience as an excuse like he wouldn't know what members and supporters would think of that.

Starmers actions on expulsion are necessary. They might not be right in that everyone who is expelled deserves it, but they are necessary.

I understand this an opinion but you can see why anyone who voted Starmer based on his pledge to unite the party or based on his legal background would be let down by it. And it's by no means a sure thing that he gets any positive outcome via expulsions. It's a bit like a football team selling players - only going to be helpful if they then replace them.

Then get behind Starmer. Things will change as normality returns and previous decisions by this government start to bite.

Lastly it's just not going to happen that way round. The changes will need to happen first if he wants the support of disillusioned left wing folk.

The Labour rights entire political message for years has been the left aren't needed or wanted. You can't just demand the same people have to lend their support regardless. Especially if you're still saying it's necessary for Starmer to kick the left around for optics.

 

[Primus84]

Good post that Lefty



But you're wrong on this. Trump lost the presidency and congress in the USA mid pandemic so it obviously can happen.




This is a cop out as well. Especially if you're then going to highlight his intelligence and political nous steering the party in to opposing remain.

6 years as an MP and however long before that as a member/supporter is plenty of time to understand what the party is. He can't be expelling members, shutting down CLP meetings and withdrawing the whip from leading MPs and then using inexperience as an excuse like he wouldn't know what members and supporters would think of that.



I understand this an opinion but you can see why anyone who voted Starmer based on his pledge to unite the party or based on his legal background would be let down by it. And it's by no means a sure thing that he gets any positive outcome via expulsions. It's a bit like a football team selling players - only going to be helpful if they then replace them.



Lastly it's just not going to happen that way round. The changes will need to happen first if he wants the support of disillusioned left wing folk.

The Labour rights entire political message for years has been the left aren't needed or wanted. You can't just demand the same people have to lend their support regardless. Especially if you're still saying it's necessary for Starmer to kick the left around for optics.

You've got a very clear choice - back the Labour Party or accept it's many more years of Tory rule.

I'm sick of the infighting and point scoring. I voted for Corbyn and Starmer as leader.

Starmer was handled an unwinnable situation with the anti-semitism issues, he has to take meaningful action. For the record I don't believe Corbyn was anti-semitic or in the least bit racist, it would be the complete opposite to his character, but his lack of action on issues snowballed into something he couldn't repair.

If Loach wouldn't leave a group that has been proscribed for good reason then he knew what he was doing.

If we cannot find a way to come together then we are doomed to more Tory governments.

No doubt, once again, at least one of the posters on here will take my head off for asking for some unity. It was wrong when the PLP tried to undermine Corbyn and I had a huge argument with my MP at the time over this. It is equally wrong when members try to undermine Starmer.

Lastly, if anyone seriously thought that RLB would stand a chance of any kind of a victory they need to give their heads a shake, she's simply not capable of leading the party, let alone the country and there's no way the country would have voted for her - she'd have lost more seats than Corbyn did. Sadly too many have been attracted to MPs like RLB and Laura Pidcock - but they're not fully rounded candidates that you could get a country to vote for.

There's a reason RLB's nickname was "Rebecca Wrong Daily".

 

[SuperStu]

You've got a very clear choice - back the Labour Party or accept it's many more years of Tory rule.

I disagree. You've got no choice whatsoever.

For starters the tories have already won the next election, they're simply too many seats ahead.

Then looking beyond that, in my opinion, if the Labour party loses it's membership, their subs and especially their time volunteering, and some or all of the trade union movements support and funding, then they'll fall even further behind. The path Starmer's on now, I think will mean the party doesn't even make significant progress at the next election. Which will mean the one after that is already lost also.

Whether I get behind Starmer/Labour will make no difference whatsoever unfortunately. There are many years of tory rule coming irrespective.

 

[SuperStu]

There's a reason RLB's nickname was "Rebecca Wrong Daily".

Not really. Just cause it rhymed. Like "red Ed", the bloke who supported austerity and wanted to remove the trade union funding from the Labour Party. Hardly the politics of a red is it.

 

[Primus84]

I disagree. You've got no choice whatsoever.

For starters the tories have already won the next election, they're simply too many seats ahead.

Then looking beyond that, in my opinion, if the Labour party loses it's membership, their subs and especially their time volunteering, and some or all of the trade union movements support and funding, then they'll fall even further behind. The path Starmer's on now, I think will mean the party doesn't even make significant progress at the next election. Which will mean the one after that is already lost also.

Whether I get behind Starmer/Labour will make no difference whatsoever unfortunately. There are many years of tory rule coming irrespective.

That's the spirit - let's just give up!

 

[Primus84]

Not really. Just cause it rhymed. Like "red Ed", the bloke who supported austerity and wanted to remove the trade union funding from the Labour Party. Hardly the politics of a red is it.

No, it's because there's a lot of truth behind it, some of the stuff she came out with was laughable, the same as Laura Pidcock.

 

[Same_as_before]

The difference between the left on here and me is that if I will be happy with 50% of Labour policies it has to be better than Torys winning again.

The left want a defined distilled 100% rule book of policies of the past. I was brought up with the rule books.

I was left of stupidity and then became sick of losing. I read all the magazine's even bothered with Marx and Engels. The 10 rules don't work today, they are of the past.

They take no account of a service and distribution based economy, that the workers own their houses, they have pensions.

There is no means of production in the UK, there is no production.
There is no audience for their policies, didn't they notice we were trounced twice.
The left want the post war policies.

 

[SuperStu]

The difference between the left on here and me is that if I will be happy with 50% of Labour policies it has to be better than Torys winning again.

You're wrong. I'd be very happy getting 50% of the policies from the last few Labour manifestos. The problem is the party isn't offering even that, and in any case I don't think they can win.

The offer so far in Starmer's leadership has been 0% of the policies with a 0% chance of that being implemented. And then his fans get agitated when that's not enthused about.

 

[1finny]

Read this far and not found out the reason he was expelled yet.

He was expelled for supporting other factions that have already been expelled.

 

[SuperStu]

That's the spirit - let's just give up!

Good for you being so plucky. Genuinely. I think that's an admirable quality. But I'm not the same. It's a bit like Boro being 4 goals down at half time in a match. My assumption will be that they'll go on to lose the match and no amount of wanting a different result can make me override that.

No, it's because there's a lot of truth behind it, some of the stuff she came out with was laughable, the same as Laura Pidcock.

Such as? The green new deal policy she worked on under the last leadership seemed to get a lot of praise at the time. During her brief time in Starmer's cabinet she went against the grain wanting to work with the teaching unions on sending kids back to school. Surely she was vindicated when they went back for one day after Christmas and then immediately went back into lockdown?

 

[Colin Warnek]

He was expelled for supporting other factions that have already been expelled.

By extension now all of Ken Loach's sympathisers can expect their papers ripped up.

 

[newusername]

Expelling an eighty five year old lifelong socialist for daring to support a free Palestine and for supporting Corbyn is a calculated move to get even more of us to leave the party.

They didn't. He was expelled for being a supporter & funder of a group that holds anti-Semitic views and not disavowing them when asked.

The independent report by the Equality & Human Rights Commission found that the Labour Party hadn't dealt with anti-Semitism in the party effectively & the report & all its recommendations were adopted in full by the Labour Party, revisiting those events now saying people made them up & they were political attacks at Corbyn is now, within the Labour Party at least, anti-Semitic.

Rightly or wrongly if you want to stay in the Labour Party you have to accept that, if you don't want to accept that & organise a group to campaign on that basis then you'll be asked to leave.

 

[Primus84]

Good for you being so plucky. Genuinely. I think that's an admirable quality. But I'm not the same. It's a bit like Boro being 4 goals down at half time in a match. My assumption will be that they'll go on to lose the match and no amount of wanting a different result can make me override that.



Such as? The green new deal policy she worked on under the last leadership seemed to get a lot of praise at the time. During her brief time in Starmer's cabinet she went against the grain wanting to work with the teaching unions on sending kids back to school. Surely she was vindicated when they went back for one day after Christmas and then immediately went back into lockdown?

Every time I heard her interviewed, she came across as clueless. The reason for her sacking was a prime example of this - she was unable to see the consequences of her actions and then was too stubborn to put them right leading to her sacking.

It's interesting you say she was going against the grain in the shadow cabinet to prevent kids going back to school and was then vindicated in January. She was sacked from the shadow cabinet in June, kids went back to school in September and were in school for 3 months up until the Christmas break. So your story doesn't stack up there.

 

[SuperStu]

kids went back to school in September and were in school for 3 months up until the Christmas break.

That was when the second wave of infections happened wasn't it?

I don't really care about the pedantry. I think the Labour party should have a leadership that seeks to work with Trade Unions. Simple as that.

The reason for her sacking was a prime example of this - she was unable to see the consequences of her actions and then was too stubborn to put them right leading to her sacking.

I think you're overegging her sacking a bit. She tweeted a compliment about an actress who lives in her constituency. And according to her she was willing to 'put things right' but couldn't get answers from Starmer's office. Which also seems to be consistent with what happened in Corbyn's case - apparently his clarification comments were all agreed with Starmer's office ahead of time, only for Starmer to renege on what had been agreed.

But in any case, even if I bend over backwards and give Starmer the benefit of the doubt in all these things - suppose he's right to sack RLB, purge Loach and other members, close CLP meetings, withdraw the whip from Corbyn - it doesn't change my view on whether he's on track to win an election.

He inherited an impossible position and as far as I can see he's made it worse for whoever comes next.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Every time I heard her interviewed, she came across as clueless. The reason for her sacking was a prime example of this - she was unable to see the consequences of her actions and then was too stubborn to put them right leading to her sacking.

It's interesting you say she was going against the grain in the shadow cabinet to prevent kids going back to school and was then vindicated in January. She was sacked from the shadow cabinet in June, kids went back to school in September and were in school for 3 months up until the Christmas break. So your story doesn't stack up there.

I've asked Lefty these questions but he won't tell me the answer so perhaps you will.

Why exactly was RLB sacked but Rachel Reeves promoted?

 

[SuperStu]

Every time I heard her interviewed, she came across as clueless.

BTW this is fine but it's obviously just very subjective. Starmer came across as clueless to me when he was interviewed after the May elections.

"I will change the things that need changing and that is the change that I will bring about."

 

[Primus84]

That was when the second wave of infections happened wasn't it?

I don't really care about the pedantry. I think the Labour party should have a leadership that seeks to work with Trade Unions. Simple as that.



I think you're overegging her sacking a bit. She tweeted a compliment about an actress who lives in her constituency. And according to her she was willing to 'put things right' but couldn't get answers from Starmer's office. Which also seems to be consistent with what happened in Corbyn's case - apparently his clarification comments were all agreed with Starmer's office ahead of time, only for Starmer to renege on what had been agreed.

But in any case, even if I bend over backwards and give Starmer the benefit of the doubt in all these things - suppose he's right to sack RLB, purge Loach and other members, close CLP meetings, withdraw the whip from Corbyn - it doesn't change my view on whether he's on track to win an election.

He inherited an impossible position and as far as I can see he's made it worse for whoever comes next.

Your initial post praises her for working with the teaching unions and the 1 day farce in January for vindicating her - this isn't so, the two are not connected - the picture in May/June was very different to the picture in December and with how things were in August we couldn't not re-open schools. By December things were very different and the Government caused themselves the ridiculous situation of kids going in for a day only in January then to have everyone off until March. But to try to link RLB to this is inaccurate. No pedantry here.

RLB retweeted an interview of Maxine Peake where Peake said anyone who refused to vote for Labour because of JC was a Tory, that US police had learned how to kill black Americans from the Israelis and she holds her nose about Keir Starmer. RLB commented when she retweeted Peak that she was "a diamond". If she couldn't see the issues with this then she's not fit to be in the shadow cabinet and by all accounts she was given options for staying in the shadow cabinet but chose not to take any of them.

 

[Primus84]

BTW this is fine but it's obviously just very subjective. Starmer came across as clueless to me when he was interviewed after the May elections.

"I will change the things that need changing and that is the change that I will bring about."

It might be subjective but how well did she do in the leadership election? With all of the hard left backing she had she couldn't even muster a third of the vote from the party - she's even less likely to go over well with the general population.

 

[Primus84]

I've asked Lefty these questions but he won't tell me the answer so perhaps you will.

Why exactly was RLB sacked but Rachel Reeves promoted?

What's your issue with Rachel Reeves?

 

[SuperStu]

I think you're misquoting Maxine Peake quite a bit there. But again, even giving the benefit of the doubt and pretending all of that is completely accurate, it still doesn't make me think the Labour party has a better chance of winning an election by pursuing fewer members and less funding and mirroring the tories policies. I think it's a bad strategy.