Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP.

[PTK]

That Labour are the better choice. Simple as that. Depending on who i'm talking to I might also try to persuade them that while i believe the aforementioned, that is just the current situation and that ultimately we need revolutionary not reactionary politics and we need to build sufficient class consciousness until those alternatives to voting in this shitshow are viable.

"Would Labour abolish the two-child limit?"
"Would Labour repeal the Public Order Bill?"
"Would Labour reverse 13 years of cuts in the funding of public services?"

These and other questions would be asked of you on the doorstep, as you canvassed for the Labour Party at the next General Election.

The answer to these would be "no".

"So, what's the point of me voting if a Labour government is just going to continue Conservative policies?" the potential voter would ask. "What difference would it make if we had a Labour government?"

 

[Pickman's model]

"Would Labour abolish the two-child limit?"
"Would Labour repeal the Public Order Bill?"
"Would Labour reverse 13 years of cuts in the funding of public services?"

These and other questions would be asked of you on the doorstep, as you canvassed for the Labour Party at the next General Election.

The answer to these would be "no".

"So, what's the point of me voting if a Labour government is just going to continue Conservative policies?" the potential voter would ask. "What difference would it make if we had a Labour government?"

Different deckchairs same titanic

 

[Dystopiary]

See, that's where you parliament junkies go wrong. The fact that you can't conceive of much beyond sticking a cross on a ballot paper every few years just goes to show your distinct lack of political imagination. For the record, I'm currently burnt out after years of shitloads of political, union and local community activity. So I'm having a break and personally writing off 2023, aside maybe from union stuff. For 2024/5, I expect to be back to helping organise all kinds of stuff where I live and work.

Vote Labour if you like, it's no skin off my nose if you want to endorse such an anti-worker, pro-boss, institutionally racist organisation. But don't be surprised when the fuckers just continue all the shit from where the Tories left off.

Anti-worker (and all the rest) and anti-people not in work. They've shown nothing but contempt for people on benefits and out of work, especially disabled people. Actually, no, I'm wrong, as well as contempt they've shown cynical cruelty. It was the Labour Party back in the '00s who started the devastating changes to the disability benefits system that've screwed over so many people.

Honestly Labour could have exactly the same policies as the BNP and people would still be arguing about getting the Tories out. And let's face it, that's exactly the direction the LP have been heading in. And with the encouragement of the people who vote for them they'll continue to shift to the right.

 

[Dystopiary]

Sunak couldn't be clearer that that you and I and all the poor people in the country are worthless and you still won't vote against him. Pointless this sneery shit, isn't it

I'm going to vote or not vote according to how I see things at the time. I assume you will do the same. I quite understand why someone wouldn't vote. I'm puzzled as to why voting to try to stop the tories gaining power would be sneered at.

Starmer couldn't be clearer that that you and I and all the poor people in the country are worthless and you still won't vote against him.

 

[two sheds]

We're just as bad as each other then

 

[GarveyLives]

"Diane Abbott made a mistake for which she immediately expressed absolute regret. It could have been a positive teaching moment about different forms and expressions of racism. Instead, Starmer has, through factional malice, turned it into a confrontation between racism and solidarity ..."

The unjust treatment of Diane Abbott demands our solidarity

(Source: @Keir_Starmer)​

"This is about more than Abbott ... It is about whether Labour advances to the next election with any claim on the support of black and ethnic minority voters ..."

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The unjust treatment of Diane Abbott demands our solidarity

(Source: @Keir_Starmer)​

"This is about more than Abbott ... It is about whether Labour advances to the next election with any claim on the support of black and ethnic minority voters ..."

What the fuck are they doing?

 

[two sheds]

It's like the ludicrous Tory Power Stance but with added virtue signalling

 

[mojo pixy]

Local cllrs routinely have lower than 30 percent turnouts during local elections. By-elections often have around the same. Neither are commonly described as illegitimate.

I suspect the response to such low numbers in a GE might be more .. lively

 

[Serge Forward]

Local cllrs routinely have lower than 30 percent turnouts during local elections. By-elections often have around the same. Neither are commonly described as illegitimate.

Just as well it's not the same as the threshold for an industrial action ballot, otherwise none of the cunts would ever get elected.... but on second thoughts...

 

[krtek a houby]

Masks I think

Have a habit of slipping

 

[JimW]

Anti-worker (and all the rest) and anti-people not in work. They've shown nothing but contempt for people on benefits and out of work, especially disabled people. Actually, no, I'm wrong, as well as contempt they've shown cynical cruelty. It was the Labour Party back in the '00s who started the devastating changes to the disability benefits system that've screwed over so many people.

Honestly Labour could have exactly the same policies as the BNP and people would still be arguing about getting the Tories out. And let's face it, that's exactly the direction the LP have been heading in. And with the encouragement of the people who vote for them they'll continue to shift to the right.

TBF they'll never have the same policies as the BNP as I think they actually planned to nationalise some industries.

 

[Karl Masks]

"Would Labour abolish the two-child limit?"
"Would Labour repeal the Public Order Bill?"
"Would Labour reverse 13 years of cuts in the funding of public services?"

These and other questions would be asked of you on the doorstep, as you canvassed for the Labour Party at the next General Election.

The answer to these would be "no".

"So, what's the point of me voting if a Labour government is just going to continue Conservative policies?" the potential voter would ask. "What difference would it make if we had a Labour government?"

The answer to those questions isn't a definite no. It's looking likely they will do nothing about the first two. The last is too broad to be taken reasonably. But for the sake of argument, let's say they won't.

Who is responsible for those three situations? Even the Corbyn manifesto made no pledge to abolish the two child limit. While I don't fully agree with it, there is some truth in Labour's claim that they are going to inherit a terrible mess and unlike 97 they aren't inheriting a growing economy. That's not to say I agree with Rachel Reeve's ridiculous fiscal rules.

the problem is, again, you are ignoring the context. If you are saying these things preclude you voting Labour then that leaves us with the same government that caused these things. Labour's track record is far better than the Tories, even if it isn't remotely ideal. What choice is there? We currently have the worst home secretary (and her vile corrupt underling Jenrick) torturing migrants and keeping them imprisoned in a situation that cannot succeed at great public expesne. A health secretary who is bent on keeping strikes going which will only make the healthcare crisis worse by increasing waiting times. Public infrastructure literally crumbling including schools and hospitals.

This isn't a case of two similar parties offering barely perceptible differences. I believe we are at a crisis point now. The Tories have to be stopped, if that means enduring Starmer then that's the price we have to pay. I dont' see a choice; do you?

 

[Rob Ray]

. . I dont' see a choice; do you?

You haven't listened to a word of what's been said above, have you.

 

[Karl Masks]

You haven't listened to a word of what's been said above, have you.

Seeing as how i've responded, and at length, directly, I would say yes. If you think I've misunderstood something, or if you'd like to propose a better alternative, then please do so. Otherwise this just comes off as the kind of sneering you accuse labour politicians and supporters of doing. I mean, you've just ignored the entire content of my response, save for one small sentence at the bottom, but tell me more about who isn't listening because one of us certainly isn't

 

[redsquirrel]

a labour win will encourage starmer to think he's done the correct thing in getting more right wing. a labour loss will encourage starmer to think he hasn't got right wing enough yet.

The loss in 2015 did not move the party to the right, on the contrary it moved to the left. Likewise the Democrats loss in 2016 moved the party to leftwards.

Of course Starmer, Streeting, Reeves etc will obviously draw the conclusion you outline above. But that does not mean that move to the right is fixed on the cards. Liz Kendall, and Yvette Cooper, were making the same arguments for a rightward move and were embarrassingly defeated in 2015.

I'm skeptical that in the current circumstances a Labour loss (or lack of majority) will result in a move to the left. And as an anarchist communist I'm not going to put any political effort into it. But former left parties have moved left after losses and/or pressure from their left flank by other parties, I cannot think of a single example of a "left" party winning big and moving left when in government.

 

[Rob Ray]

i've responded, and at length, directly, I would say yes.

If you've read and understood, yet are still trying this no other options/least worst option/This Next Election stuff as though the rest of the conversation never happened then it's flat out disrespect, and you deserve sneering at.

 

[Karl Masks]

If you've read and understood, yet are still trying this no other options/least worst option/This Next Election stuff as though the rest of the conversation never happened then it's flat out disrespect, and you deserve sneering at.

I gave you an opportunity to correct what I'm saying or offer an alternative, as you've been asked before, and instead, this. You're fundamentally unserious. I don't see any point engaging with you further when you'd rather, by your own admission sneer instead of engage.

 

[Rob Ray]

I gave you an opportunity to correct what I'm saying or offer an alternative, as you've been asked before, and instead, this. You're fundamentally unserious. I don't see any point engaging with you further when you'd rather, by your own admission sneer instead of engage.

Lol jfc as though I (and several other people) didn't spend multiple long posts yesterday talking about exactly what you're going on about now.

"Unserious"? As though you even understand what serious would involve. On this evidence, it involves only engaging with arguments you reckon are on your preferred terrain.

 

[PTK]

The answer to those questions isn't a definite no. It's looking likely they will do nothing about the first two. The last is too broad to be taken reasonably. But for the sake of argument, let's say they won't.

Who is responsible for those three situations? Even the Corbyn manifesto made no pledge to abolish the two child limit. While I don't fully agree with it, there is some truth in Labour's claim that they are going to inherit a terrible mess and unlike 97 they aren't inheriting a growing economy. That's not to say I agree with Rachel Reeve's ridiculous fiscal rules.

the problem is, again, you are ignoring the context. If you are saying these things preclude you voting Labour then that leaves us with the same government that caused these things. Labour's track record is far better than the Tories, even if it isn't remotely ideal. What choice is there? We currently have the worst home secretary (and her vile corrupt underling Jenrick) torturing migrants and keeping them imprisoned in a situation that cannot succeed at great public expesne. A health secretary who is bent on keeping strikes going which will only make the healthcare crisis worse by increasing waiting times. Public infrastructure literally crumbling including schools and hospitals.

This isn't a case of two similar parties offering barely perceptible differences. I believe we are at a crisis point now. The Tories have to be stopped, if that means enduring Starmer then that's the price we have to pay. I dont' see a choice; do you?

"In government, Labour will immediately end the worst aspects of Universal Credit, including:

• Ending the benefit cap and the two child limit, which alone will stop up to 300,000 children being pushed into poverty;"

Press Releases – The Labour Party

labour.org.uk

 

[Karl Masks]

"In government, Labour will immediately end the worst aspects of Universal Credit, including:

• Ending the benefit cap and the two child limit, which alone will stop up to 300,000 children being pushed into poverty;"

Press Releases – The Labour Party

labour.org.uk

I was referring to the 2017 manifesto: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf

I'm not even sure this issue would come up much on the doorstep. It should, because it's a horrible policy. But I think many people are concerned with other things

 

[PTK]

I was referring to the 2017 manifesto: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf

I'm not even sure this issue would come up much on the doorstep. It should, because it's a horrible policy. But I think many people are concerned with other things

"The cuts to work allowances in Universal Credit (UC), and the decision to limit tax credit and UC payments to the first two children in a family, are an attack on low-income families and will increase child poverty. Labour will reform and redesign UC, ending six-week delays in payment and the 'rape clause'.
With nearly four million children currently living"
2017 Manifesto.

 

[Karl Masks]

"The cuts to work allowances in Universal Credit (UC), and the decision to limit tax credit and UC payments to the first two children in a family, are an attack on low-income families and will increase child poverty. Labour will reform and redesign UC, ending six-week delays in payment and the 'rape clause'.
With nearly four million children currently living"
2017 Manifesto.

Correct. Now show me where in the manifesto the promise to repeal it can be found. All it says is that they want to reform UC. I'm not disputing cCorbyn opposed this, of course he did. But you're demonising Labour now while supporting Jumbly Crumbles when he stood on the above.

So, that aside. What are the alternatives we can endorse next election? there aren't going to be France style riots, black blocs, civil unrest, or anything. Direct action hasn't ousted the Tories thus far, so wht do you suggest? We all agree that Keir is rubbish. What's the alternative? Go...

 

[Rob Ray]

What's the alternative?

You'd still be asking this if Westminster was on fire wouldn't you. Absolutely dishonestly pretending no-one had ever given you any answers before.

 

[Pickman's model]

there aren't going to be France style riots, black blocs, civil unrest, or anything.

You'll forgive me if I don't accept the prognostications of a fool

 

[kabbes]

I find it just extraordinary that the idea of voting Labour, no matter how much you hate them (and I do hate them) is being held up as “doing something” next year.

For a start, most of us are not in marginal seats. Even if you are naive enough to think that voting in an election somehow matters, you have to take that into context. If you’re not in a marginal seat, it is conceptually better, tactically speaking, to register that you think Labour stink and don’t have your support. That won’t make any difference at all to the outcome, but a widespread lack of support for Labour would at least provide some cover for those in the left of the party who are arguing that Starmer’s approach doesn’t work.

Then we have the small number of people who are in marginal seats. Frankly, their vote still doesn’t matter statistically speaking. But if that is you, it’s rather more important that you ask yourself what you’re voting for than against. Psephologists will simply register that Labour won, and they did so with a particular set of policies. That will be taken as an endorsement not just for those policies but also for that direction of travel. The next election is most definitely not just about what happens between 2024 and 2029. It is also about what happens after 2029. It’s more naive than I can cope with to think that you can endorse ever-more right-wing politics and that will somehow have no effect on what happens beyond the next 5 years.

And that just leaves us with being a marginal voter and thinking that you can positively affect the specific period between 2024 and 2029. And on that score, I say that if you really think that Starmer is going to be better than Sunak then I have a bridge I want to sell you good luck to you.

 

[tim]

Different deckchairs same titanic

And the band playing, "Things Can Only Get Better."

 

[Karl Masks]

You'd still be asking this if Westminster was on fire wouldn't you. Absolutely dishonestly pretending no-one had ever given you any answers before.

What's dishonest is you again clipping my response to ignore the salient point. I never said there weren't alternatives, I said that none of those alternatives, that i've seen thus far, are ever likely to happen. I don't rate the chances of Westminster being set alight or if it were, it doing much good. Maybe you know something I don't.

You could have proposed something practical in your response here, but you didn't. That's why I don't take you seriously. You aren't looking for answers, you just want to have a pop at people for voting Labour. Well done

 

[kabbes]

What's dishonest is you again clipping my response to ignore the salient point. I never said there weren't alternatives, I said that none of those alternatives, that i've seen thus far, are ever likely to happen. I don't rate the chances of Westminster being set alight or if it were, it doing much good. Maybe you know something I don't.

You could have proposed something practical in your response here, but you didn't. That's why I don't take you seriously. You aren't looking for answers, you just want to have a pop at people for voting Labour. Well done

I counter your option of a “practical” act, which is to register a vote for this particular Labour Party, regardless of where you live and despite everything they stand for, with my “practical” act of not registering a vote for this particular Labour Party based on where I live and what they stand for. I think that my “practical” act will be more efficacious than your “practical” act, although, in practice, both “practical” acts will achieve fuck all.

 

[Rob Ray]

What's dishonest is you again clipping my response to ignore the salient point.

I keep clipping that bit because I'd like you to break the habit of dropping this lie into the rest of your prose.

It's a fundamentally unpleasant tactic and if you don't realise what you're doing (trying to regularise thie idea that people never offer alternatives) then you clearly need it repeatedly pointed out to you until it sinks in. If you do realise and are doing it deliberately then your protestations are also dishonest.