Luciana Berger rejoins Labour Party

[Nano]

He did defeat lots of votes, however there was a much smaller majority for the tories and it was during brexit when the tories were voting against their leadership also.

They had a much smaller majority because of all the votes/seats gained under Corbyn in 2017. May went to the polls looking to increse their majority butand until Corbyn's manifesto was released the polls were showing that it would happen. The manifesto and Corbyn's performance in the run up to that election meant the only way that May could even command a majority was by paying off the DUP. The 2017 election was weirdly not one where Brexit got a lot of air time. At the time both parties had the same position on Brexit so Labour's (surprisingly good) performance showed that there was genuine desire for that Labour agenda and if the majority of Blairites in the PLP had been onside then it is an election that Labour could have won or at least prevented the Tories from being able to command a majority even with assistance. They were happy to let the country go to the dogs just so Corbyn didn't get a chance to govern and anyone supporting them for that should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

The 2019 election was completely different. Corbyn was weak, undeniably, because he should have stood up to the remainers in the party and made them accept that Brexit was going to happen instead of ending up with his non-position. The manifesto was irrelevant in that election. It was a single-issue. He knew it was too late for him by that point. He knew Brexit was going to happen as it is what people wanted but he had agreed to do what the membership wanted and the remainers insisted (unlike when the membership wanted Corbyn).

 

[JackG]

This is the level every 'discussion' descends to. Starmer is to blame for everything. Not Sunak or Netanyahu or Biden or Macron or Putin. Just Starmer.

I'll concede the general point that quite a few threads are derailed and end up 'Starmer is the saviour/satan'; this thread has always been focussed on the Labour Party under Starmer, however.

 

[LessoftheLip]

I'll concede the general point that quite a few threads are derailed and end up 'Starmer is the saviour/satan'; this thread has always been focussed on the Labour Party under Starmer, however.

Anecdotally a lot more threads end up with him being cast as satan rather than the saviour.

Starmer, or rather Stalin, was first mentioned in post #19.

Check it out

 

[JackG]

Anecdotally a lot more threads end up with him being cast as satan rather than the saviour.

Starmer, or rather Stalin, was first mentioned in post #19.

Check it out

Post #1 actually. It's the headline of the article that prompted the OP. Check it out

 

[Ziggy]

Forget the argument over who or what Starmer is or isn’t.

Carol Vorderman is good at sums. So she’s done some, so we don’t have too.

FACTS
David Cameron became PM, after Gordon Brown, on May 11th 2010, 5000 days ago.
In June 2010 he said the national debt was £770 billion (other sources quote £903 billion, but I'll use HIS £770 billion for the calculation)

By end Nov 2023 the National Debt had grown to a colossal £2,670 billion (Source:ONS)

That's an increase of £1,900 billion.
Divide that by 5,000 days of Tory Rule and gross mismanagement.
It means an increase, on average, of c£380 million every single day for 5,000 days.

Where did the money go.

 

[LessoftheLip]

Post #1 actually. It's the headline of the article that prompted the OP. Check it out

So Starmer's apology for Labour’s handling of antiSemitism complaints which led to Luciana Berger rejoining the Labour Party means the whole thread is about HIM and nothing to do with HER?

And because it's about him he's fair game?

Righto

 

[Scrote]

He was weak in interviews agreeing to anything he was asked, on the hoof and uncosted.

Financial spending, for example waspi remuneration.

Firstly, you've bounced it back to 2019 again.

Secondly, the Waspi money was the only thing he added to the 2019 manifesto as far as I recall. What other things do you remember?

The Waspi payments were owed. The only other option was to leave it out of the manifesto and hope it could be gotten through parliament at a later date. There would be fewer guarantees on this though. Declaring it as a known cost - even if it was unexpected - gets around most of the problems.

The women involved deserve their money. Do you think otherwise, and if so why?

 

[Laughing]

They had a much smaller majority because of all the votes/seats gained under Corbyn in 2017. May went to the polls looking to increse their majority butand until Corbyn's manifesto was released the polls were showing that it would happen. The manifesto and Corbyn's performance in the run up to that election meant the only way that May could even command a majority was by paying off the DUP. The 2017 election was weirdly not one where Brexit got a lot of air time. At the time both parties had the same position on Brexit so Labour's (surprisingly good) performance showed that there was genuine desire for that Labour agenda and if the majority of Blairites in the PLP had been onside then it is an election that Labour could have won or at least prevented the Tories from being able to command a majority even with assistance. They were happy to let the country go to the dogs just so Corbyn didn't get a chance to govern and anyone supporting them for that should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

The 2019 election was completely different. Corbyn was weak, undeniably, because he should have stood up to the remainers in the party and made them accept that Brexit was going to happen instead of ending up with his non-position. The manifesto was irrelevant in that election. It was a single-issue. He knew it was too late for him by that point. He knew Brexit was going to happen as it is what people wanted but he had agreed to do what the membership wanted and the remainers insisted (unlike when the membership wanted Corbyn).

The labour manifesto was pretty good in 2017. No argument there.

Got a bit messy in 2019 though.

If anything 2017 should have been a platform for a Labour victory instead of the tory landslide 2019 became. Blame who you please nano,that's your choice.

 

[gregorgregorovich]

Forget the argument over who or what Starmer is or isn’t.

Carol Vorderman is good at sums. So she’s done some, so we don’t have too.

FACTS
David Cameron became PM, after Gordon Brown, on May 11th 2010, 5000 days ago.
In June 2010 he said the national debt was £770 billion (other sources quote £903 billion, but I'll use HIS £770 billion for the calculation)

By end Nov 2023 the National Debt had grown to a colossal £2,670 billion (Source:ONS)

That's an increase of £1,900 billion.
Divide that by 5,000 days of Tory Rule and gross mismanagement.
It means an increase, on average, of c£380 million every single day for 5,000 days.

Where did the money go.

Well, about a weeks worth has gone to Ben.T and I bet not a single penny of it will go to Port Talbot.

But, to answer your question, Panama,Jersey, Isle of Man, the Bahamas, British Virgin Islands Turks and Caicos. Michelle Mone, Hancock's pub owning mate. That should clear a fair bit of it up.

 

[Laughing]

Firstly, you've bounced it back to 2019 again.

Secondly, the Waspi money was the only thing he added to the 2019 manifesto as far as I recall. What other things do you remember?

The Waspi payments were owed. The only other option was to leave it out of the manifesto and hope it could be gotten through parliament at a later date. There would be fewer guarantees on this though. Declaring it as a known cost - even if it was unexpected - gets around most of the problems.

The women involved deserve their money. Do you think otherwise, and if so why?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine Scrote. You jump from one argument to the next. You never came back to me earlier, now you want to jump in on a conversation with someone else because you have a point to make. That's fair enough it's a message board and you are free to do that. However I am free to ignore it. So answer my question and I'll answer yours. This way we get a reasoned back and forth rather than you picking out single issues to argue on.

Explain to me where Corbyn showed real leadership

 

[Scrote]

Explain to me where Corbyn showed real leadership

As far as leadership goes the first and most obvious example is the Corbyn led upsurge in membership.

Then there's the ability to both articulate and then stand by his chosen position - giving people something to believe in and follow along with e.g. not pressing the big red button on a whim.

He led by example with the broad church cabinet and then showed strength and patience by not just binning the centrists when it was abvious they weren't interested.

The people he was supposed to be leading at the management level weren't acting in good faith. That isn't proof of lack of leadership. It just shows that many centrists couldn't care less about what was best for the country.

Corbyn isn't blameless. I don't think anyone has ever said he is. Most of the discussion on here is about how Starmer has abandoned his pledge to continue with similar policies. A leader wouldn't resort to outright lies to try and hoodwink people into following him.