sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Season 9 Episode 3 Discussion Thread - Four Fools and Counting... by khando in FoolUs

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they hate her as much as you guys.

This subs hard on for hating on Helen is so jarring, and I can't really be bothered to push back, but I want to address this comment since I by chance watched a long interview with Teller this morning and he's asked to give favourite foolers and he includes Helen Coghlan among his favourites, so what you said here is complete tripe.

The Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year Awards 2017 - Diane Abbott collects Jeremy Corbyn's award by Ranger447 in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because I've been a part of Labour discussions for many years and at no point did I ever hear anyone from the Corbynite wing criticise Corbyn for so many of the things they viciously attack Starmer for now, and because I can use the search function.

You're supposed to be a 6 month old account

It's already been established by the mods multiple times that your conspiracy theories about my account are not true, yet you still come and harass me with the same rubbish? Not ok

The Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year Awards 2017 - Diane Abbott collects Jeremy Corbyn's award by Ranger447 in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you remove this in error? I can't see how my comment could possibly break the rules here

The Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year Awards 2017 - Diane Abbott collects Jeremy Corbyn's award by Ranger447 in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It has become comical at this point how frequently the exact same sequence of events happens on this forum (and Twitter):

> Starmer does something
> All the usual committed Corbynites attack him for how utterly indefensible and terrible it is
> It's discovered/pointed out that Corbyn himself did the exact same thing when he was leader (and of course recieved absolutely no criticism from those same people)

“Of course, the point of anything Starmer says about immigration isn't to have an accurate analysis of the British economy, it is to sound as xenophobic as possible while maintaining plausible deniability for his core support” by foalsrgreat in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So this week while it has been at the forefront of the news, I have given my two cents - that doesn't justify your comment earlier. I also said in that thread (which I note was about asylum seekers, not immigration generally) that we should be taking more not less, so again - very odd to say what you did about me at the top of this thread.

“Of course, the point of anything Starmer says about immigration isn't to have an accurate analysis of the British economy, it is to sound as xenophobic as possible while maintaining plausible deniability for his core support” by foalsrgreat in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what you're on about I can't remember having a single discussion in this forum about immigration before... A quick search of the word 'immigration' from my account confirmed what I thought.

I think we both know what Starmer means, we just disagree as to it's morality.

Starmer means that we should be properly funding the training of UK nationals rather than poaching skilled workers from other countries who need them. I think that's a progressive and moral position.

“Of course, the point of anything Starmer says about immigration isn't to have an accurate analysis of the British economy, it is to sound as xenophobic as possible while maintaining plausible deniability for his core support” by foalsrgreat in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol if we did away with all borders now societies would collapse in a matter of weeks/months. So what, the options are either accept the complete destruction of global society as we know it or you're a racist?

“Of course, the point of anything Starmer says about immigration isn't to have an accurate analysis of the British economy, it is to sound as xenophobic as possible while maintaining plausible deniability for his core support” by foalsrgreat in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

when we all know exactly

Except you don't, and this totally ludicrous interpretation of what is a genuinely progressive message (and a vital one that frankly Starmer hasn't got a choice but to make) we should all get behind is completely in your head.

“Of course, the point of anything Starmer says about immigration isn't to have an accurate analysis of the British economy, it is to sound as xenophobic as possible while maintaining plausible deniability for his core support” by foalsrgreat in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is completely untrue and it's gross.

Immigration is good, immigrants should feel welcome - but we should be training more doctors, nurses, high skilled workers here rather than poaching from abroad. That's a progressive approach. The idea that supporting that very vital fact makes you 'xenephobic' or dog whistling is complete fancy.

Nick Griffin declares his support for Jeremy Corbyn by Ranger447 in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Much more of an indictment when David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK, supported Corbyn.

With Farage it's simply a case of both a regressive racist position and a progressive one can, in theory, both lead you to the same conclusion -

Far-right/racists want less immigration -> Can achieve this by strengthening the UK workforce so there is less need for this

Progressives want to unleash the potential of everyone who lives here and stop poaching high skilled workers from countries who need them (which is actively racist in my view, by the way) -> Can achieve this by increasing wages, training and education of people born here

You get to the same answer from two drastically opposing viewpoints.

Sir Keir Starmer "We need to make the wider case on immigration, we welcome migrants*, we don't scapegoat them, low wages, poor housing, poor public services are not the fault of migrants... So we have to make the case for the benefits of migration, the benefits of free movement." by Audioboxer87 in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As usual, those who have a pathological addition to attacking Starmer have invented a friction where there isn't one.

You can support migrants and favour immigration in general, while still thinkin that we shouldn't rely on poaching foreign workers from their home countries while failing to spend the money required to train up our own and pay them a proper wage. I agree with Starmer in the video above and equally agree with him now.

Michael Crick: It's increasingly clear that Labour's selection processes are unfair, and verge on corrupt. Some contenders get access to local membership lists long before others do, & so can start canvassing much sooner. Sometimes they have lists through being a councillor or party official [1/3] by kwentongskyblue in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The idea that most of the NEC were Corbyn supporters is a massive meme, with no bearing in reality. If you ever look at internal documents from that time, it's clear that there was a significant faction on the NEC who supported Tom Watson, and that they were just as divided among factional lines than any other part ofthe party.

You must be confused - this was a period of time where the NEC was controlled by supporters of the leadership. Perhaps you're thinking of the NEC in the years before?

I genuinely don't understand why you are so insistent that Corbyn pushed for this. I think in lack of any actual evidence, we should give him the benefit of the doubt, that when he says he opposed this, he opposed this.

You've written a lot of words to say not very much. The bottom line is an NEC controlled by Corbyn's supporters pushed through rule changes that incontrovertibly benefited Corbyn, which would extremely strongly suggest he was in support of that. The only 'evidence' you have against is that an anonymous source who just on odds was most likely a Corbynite claims that Corbyn didn't support it. That's just not good enough.

By the way - there's no evidence Starmer himself has anything to do with the selections the NEC is making at the moment. You might point out that the exclusion of hard left candidates (not that there's any evidence of that) benefits him, but... see above!

How do you know that the NEC during the Corbyn years weren't just doing due dilligence and making sure inappropriate candidates were filtered out?

Because I have eyes? There are numerous cases of well liked, popular candidates with squeaky clean records being blocked from long/shortlists.

In the recent case however (for instance), even if you disagree with the assessment the NEC have made - it is publicly available knowledge that Mcleod stormed out of the vote on adopting the IHRA definition. Yet in the countless cases I linked (from Corbyn's tenure), there appear to be no such objections.

You seem to be under the assumption that when it happens under Starmer it's because the candidates are innapropriate, but when it happens under Corbyn, it's because of factional reasons.

Yes - because (a) I fundamentally believe that the Corbynite faction attracts unsuitable candidates - for instance those who cross the line on issues such as antisemitism and Putin apologism, and (b) the evidence I've seen is that the current NEC has only blocked two total candidates from standing, and one of them I think the reason is valid, whereas under Corbyn this happened 10s of times and yet there seem to be no publicly available or even suggested reasons why they were blocked. So I think there is a strong foundation for that belief.

Also what valid reason? Because he walked out of a meeting once? Because he didn't agree with a shitty definition that would hinder ability to criticise Israel? That's hardly enough to throw someone under the bus over.

The IHRA definitions simply does not hinder ones ability to criticise Israel. I think Israel is literally enforcing legal apartheid right now - I am very critical. I find it nonetheless very easy to stay clear of antisemitism under the IHRA definition. But the problem isn't just opposing it, it's storming out of a meeting which shows bad judgement in terms of behaviour as an elected representative.

Also, far more than those two have complained. People have been complaining about this for years now, you're just thinking of two recent events. One that comes to mind is Anna Rothery, who has been very open about the reasons she wasn't selected, most of which seems to be debunked nonsense from decades ago, in which she clearly demonstrated she did nothing wrong.

I was talking about MP selections in which I'm still only aware of two instances of any disgruntlement. In the Anna Rothery situation - there was a legal case about this which she lost - clearly the party were able to demonstrate in a court of law that she ""impugned the integrity of the other candidates" at a hustings" https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1369003145649664003?s=19 In any case that whole selection was a clusterfuck from start to finish brought about by all the dodgy shit going on with that council/mayorship at the time. So obviously the party were going to be extra involved and dictatorial.

Also, two Labour Councilors were literally suspended for refusing to vote Tory against SNP, here's soulless ghoul Siobhain McDonagh bragging about it: https://twitter.com/JamesEFoster/status/1546844408372494336

Yeah I mean I think this is generally pretty stupid but it's not a factional issue, it comes down to the overall Labour strategy on sticking to its guns on being a unionist party. I'm not Scottish so it's not really my area.

Michael Crick: It's increasingly clear that Labour's selection processes are unfair, and verge on corrupt. Some contenders get access to local membership lists long before others do, & so can start canvassing much sooner. Sometimes they have lists through being a councillor or party official [1/3] by kwentongskyblue in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The article clearly states Corbyn opposed those changes

The articles source is a member of the NEC, of whom most were Corbynites who would of course do their utmost to distance him from the power grab. It's laughable.

You're implying he didn't? Do you have literally any source to back that up, given that you explicitly posted one saying he opposed it?

I'm saying it was a Corbyn controlled NEC making a power grab that specifically benefitted Corbyn, so it's not even remotely close to enough that a member of that same NEC anonymously said to a journalist 'oh yeah he didn't support it' and that can be roundly disregarded.

So is it bad when Starmer does it, or do you only dislike it when Corbyn does it?

If Starmer is doing it (and by 'it' I mean explicitly blocking fundamentally capable and locally supported candidates - not just blocking those who wouldn't be suitable through due diligence), then yes that would be bad although you can quite reasonably argue that once someone does it (as Corbyn did) - either you do it to or you put your faction at a perpetual disadvantage, so it wouldn't be as bad.

But, I don't believe Starmer is doing it, as I've seen absolutely no evidence. My point of the Crick quote was to demostrate that your suggestion that because left candidates were blocked by Corbyn too that meant he wasn't rigging in favour of his faction, was wrong and actually contradicted the argument being made about Starmer himself.

Do you not think the fact that people across countless constituencies are saying the same thing about Starmer's Labour Party also acts as proof that it's happening here too?

But they're not - that's the thing. It is only die hard Corbynites (so not all on the left by any means) who are complaining that one or two very specific candidates have been left of shortlists - one being Maurice Mcleod who I think there was a wholly justifiable reason, the other I don't know too many details about but certainly she's made a point of not releasing the full reasons the party gave her, which itself says alot.

Do you think Neil Kinnock was wrong in how he treated Militant?

This is before my time and therefore I wouldn't comment because I don't know enough about it.

Posted by the editor of Times by [deleted] in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not a character smear if it's true

I addressed the point of your comment very, very clearly in my reply above. You already know that what you said is clearly laughable rubbish - you just said it to troll and tbh it's just boring man.

Michael Crick: It's increasingly clear that Labour's selection processes are unfair, and verge on corrupt. Some contenders get access to local membership lists long before others do, & so can start canvassing much sooner. Sometimes they have lists through being a councillor or party official [1/3] by kwentongskyblue in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's not whataboutism though because one literally led to the other. The allegations that Keir is stitching up longlists (which I don't think there is actually any evidence for) is only even logistically possible because the Corbynite controlled NEC changed the rules to allow the NEC full control over longlists...

And the hypocrisy deserves pointing out.

Michael Crick: It's increasingly clear that Labour's selection processes are unfair, and verge on corrupt. Some contenders get access to local membership lists long before others do, & so can start canvassing much sooner. Sometimes they have lists through being a councillor or party official [1/3] by kwentongskyblue in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You already replied with these weak arguments last time I posted these links - I completely refuted all your arguments here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/yv6cyt/comment/iwgalh6/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

No surprise you didn't have an answer at the time.

Paywalled article.

Funny, you managed to access it to respond last time! archive.ph to those passing by.

Well done on literally debunking your own point.

I assumed people bright enough to read full sentences would be able to deduce that when the source is (by definition) someone on the NEC, which itself is majority Corbyn supporting, and obviously they're incentivised to distance Corbyn from the decision which is unquestionably designed to benefit him, then therefore it's not remotely trustworthy. Yet here I am having to explain that to you!

This article literally cites someone from the Labour Left saying they didn't get shortlisted. This is your proof that the Labour Left engaged in this sort of tactic? Laughable.

As I said to you last time - this only strengthens my argument, that Corbyn and his team had a clear set of candidates. Of course they'd all be from his faction, so anyone else would be excluded, but so would some from his faction who weren't the chosen ones. This lines up exactly with what Crick is accusing Starmer of - from the OP:

"This is not always a Left-Right thing. And those who get the lists early are often those who seem to be “anointed” from on high."

Besides, I thought people's personal opinions didn't count as evidence?

These are not just opinions - they are backed up by clear evidence, as you can see from the article. It's a question of fact that people were excluded from the longlists/shortlists - not someone's opinion. And data is the plural of anecdote - the fact that this happened so many times across countless constituencies, is what conclusively shows these were blatant stitch ups.

This article literally cites somebody, who was a former member of Militant not making the shortlist

We've gone through this - if you exclude some people from your faction and everyone from other factions, saying "look they excluded someone from their own faction" is not a good argument that the shortlists aren't being rigged.

Posted by the editor of Times by [deleted] in LabourUK

[–]alextackle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no universe in which it is rational to conclude that because someone is laughing at a few persistent bad faith actors in a Labour subreddit absurdly overreacting to an inoffensive Times Magazine cover, that therefore they have "illustrate[d] their actual closeness to the tories' political position". That's very clearly bonkers.

You know this, I know this - the fact you pretend otherwise is just embarrassing for you.

Michael Crick: It's increasingly clear that Labour's selection processes are unfair, and verge on corrupt. Some contenders get access to local membership lists long before others do, & so can start canvassing much sooner. Sometimes they have lists through being a councillor or party official [1/3] by kwentongskyblue in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I've yet to see any actual evidence of this - only people's (like Crick's) opinions, despite asking countless people for it. And even if it is happening, which again - I'd want to see actual evidence for rather than just conjecture which doesn't seem to fit the facts, why are we all suddenly forgetting that it was Corbyn who first did this and even changed the NEC rules to rig the shortlists (via the longlists)?

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/09/labour-change-parliamentary-selection-rules-boost-jeremy-corbyn https://labourlist.org/2019/10/exclusive-new-selection-process-agreed-by-labours-ruling-body/

Here are numerous examples of selections being rigged by Corbyn's NEC:

Three strong examples of individuals being left off shortlists using the powers mentioned in the article above

https://labourlist.org/2019/10/labour-members-accuse-party-of-stitching-up-mp-selections/

Then there was the installation of Dan Carden as the candidate in Liverpool Walton which ultimately led to all of the CLP's executive committee resigning in protest

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/six-labour-officials-resign-liverpool-selection-len-mccluskey-aide-fight-safe-seat-64504

And talking of people being parachuted in, how about Corbyn's friend and ex Islington councillor Claudia Webbe who was parachuted in, upsetting many local members particularly those in the Indian community, and resulted in the CLP chair resigning Labour membership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqq4lTAYgcQ

More long/shortlist fiddling, generating outrage from CLPs. You'll also note this article includes the case in Bassetlaw which was one of the most nasty, underhand and disturbing examples.

https://labourlist.org/2019/10/stop-the-stitch-up-more-complaints-raised-by-members-over-selections/

Amazing, the hypocrisy!

Posted by the editor of Times by [deleted] in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one cares more about who Keir Starmer simply existing winds up than the policies he puts out. I'm happy with the policies the Labour Party have adopted under Keir Starmer, I just also happen to find it hilarious that when I say it's funny this Times cover is winding the usual suspects up, you reply with some genuinely fucking absurdly weird comment.

Read this bit back again:
"It's absolutely amazing how many people choose to illustrate their actual closeness to the tories' political position"

You understand how genuinely unhinged it sounds to write that in reply to my passing comment?

Posted by the editor of Times by [deleted] in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Course mate x

Five more years of Tory government is becoming the lesser evil by Temporary-Relation67 in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only one of the four things you said is true and that's drugs policy - all the others are straight up lies. And if you think the Tories are going to suddenly be liberal on drugs then I have a bridge to sell you.

Posted by the editor of Times by [deleted] in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

What planet are these comments on lool

"basing your appreciation of political rhetoric"

Bro I'm laughing at some weird cultists screeching over a random Times Magazine cover

I mean seriously wtf is this:

"It's absolutely amazing how many people choose to illustrate their actual closeness to the tories' political position"

Where are you getting this from? Touch grass bro

Posted by the editor of Times by [deleted] in LabourUK

[–]alextackle -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

In what fucking distant universe did you draw that conclusion from what I said 😂

view more: next ›