Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

WPGB or LP

WPGB or LP

  • WPGB

    Votes: 7 25.9%
  • LP

    Votes: 20 74.1%

  • Total voters
    27
You can find many a Labour Party member who has contempt for Starmer's political positions. You cannot find any members of the WPB who have contempt for thos of Galloway. The WPB is a sect.
I'm not sure that this a positive or a good reason to vote Labour tbh. Quite the opposite in fact. :confused:
 
"once they get into office some of the things dropped out of their manifesto will reappear under pressure from the backbenches as it were."

There is no political precedent for this. The Labour Party has a history of moving to the right in office, and failing to implement policies in its manifesto that could be described as left-wing. The pressure of office drives social democratic governments to the right. The backbenches of the next Labour government will be more right-wing than now. Blair pushed ahead with a number of things in the face of large backbench revolts (for many of which George Galloway was absent from the Commons).

What we may see is a growth of the far right, as a reaction to the betrayals of the Labour government.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't but again out of a choice of the two (Tory and Labour) which would you rather have bearing in mind no matter how you wish for it you don't have a third one?
A vote for the WPB is an endorsement of Galloway, whereas a Labour vote is not necessarily an endorsement of Starmer.
Very true, whose to say that Keir Starmer will still be leading the Labour Party 12 months from now, lots of PM's (especially lately) have never been elected.
 
"once they get into office some of the things dropped out of their manifesto will reappear under pressure from the backbenches as it were."

There is no political precedent for this. The Labour Party has a history of moving to the right in office, and failing to implement policies in its manifesto that could be described as left-wing. The pressure of office drives social democratic governments to the right. The backbenches of the next Labour government will be more right-wing than now. Blair pushed ahead with a number of things in the face of large backbench revolts (for many of which George Galloway was absent from the Commons).

What we may see is a growth of the far right, as a reaction to the betrayals of the Labour government.
vote labour for betrayal and the growth of the far right!
 
im not sure that is a very good analysis.



 
I'm not sure that this a positive or a good reason to vote Labour tbh. Quite the opposite in fact. :confused:
<chuckle> You may be right! I would say that we should vote for Labour candidates who have condemned the attrocities in the Gaza Strip and called for an immediate ceasefire.
 
Maybe they will, maybe they won't but again out of a choice of the two (Tory and Labour) which would you rather have bearing in mind no matter how you wish for it you don't have a third one?

Very true, whose to say that Keir Starmer will still be leading the Labour Party 12 months from now, lots of PM's (especially lately) have never been elected.
If Starmer goes, he will be replaced by another right-winger, for the threshold for the number of nominations has been increased, and no left-wing MP would be nominated.
 
<chuckle> You may be right! I would say that we should vote for Labour candidates who have condemned the attrocities in the Gaza Strip and called for an immediate ceasefire.
Thing is, it's not just Gaza. It's everything.

If someone is standing for (or indeed a member of) a political party, that surely means they agree in general with its policies. I don't. So fuck that for a game of soldiers.
 
Thing is, it's not just Gaza. It's everything.

If someone is standing for (or indeed a member of) a political party, that surely means they agree in general with its policies. I don't. So fuck that for a game of soldiers.
The thing about the Labour Party is that all its candidates do not necessarily agree with the policies of the leadership. Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn agreed with the policies of Blair? There were numerous revolts by backbench Labour MPs against Blair's policies.
 
The thing about the Labour Party is that all its candidates do not necessarily agree with the policies of the leadership. Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn agreed with the policies of Blair? There were numerous revolts by backbench Labour MPs against Blair's policies.
A vote for Corbyn while Blair was leader was a vote for Blair’s premiership, and was understood as and counted as mandate for Blair’s manifesto.
 
do not equate what is happening in palestine to what is happening in syria or ukraine. neither of those are genocide.
Only because Ukraine has some ability to fight back. By the UN's guidelines on such things, it's attempted genocide. Stealing children to be sent thousands of km away to live with Russian families so they can be "de-nazified" is a textbook example. Section (e), Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2.
 
A vote for Corbyn while Blair was leader was a vote for Blair’s premiership, and was understood as and counted as mandate for Blair’s manifesto.
Would you rather that there had been a Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons denouncing Blair, or a Conservative MP or Blairite in Islington North?
 
The thing about the Labour Party is that all its candidates do not necessarily agree with the policies of the leadership. Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn agreed with the policies of Blair? There were numerous revolts by backbench Labour MPs against Blair's policies.
So if you're a Labour candidate and don't agree with the policies of the leadership (and therefore the policies the party is standing on), why exactly stand for Labour? I mean sure, there'll always be the odd thing you don't fully agree with but this feels like much more than the odd thing (and more importantly, some of this stuff feels really important and fundamental). (And yeah, I thought Corbyn, Tony Benn etc were hypocrites when they did that too.)

And if you're a voter who does agree with Labour policy and votes for a candidate on the basis that they surely agree with it too -- after all, that's who they're bloody standing for -- you'd rightly feel like you'd been lied to if it turns out the Labour candidate doesn't actually agree with Labour policy. It's ridiculous.
 
How do we build an alternative is a key question. We don't build an alternative through abstract propaganda.
We don’t build an alternative through alphabetical libraries of Czech animation from 49-85 either. So, you lose.
 
So if you're a Labour candidate and don't agree with the policies of the leadership (and therefore the policies the party is standing on), why exactly stand for Labour? I mean sure, there'll always be the odd thing you don't fully agree with but this feels like much more than the odd thing (and more importantly, some of this stuff feels really important and fundamental). (And yeah, I thought Corbyn, Tony Benn etc were hypocrites when they did that too.)

And if you're a voter who does agree with Labour policy and votes for a candidate on the basis that they surely agree with it too -- after all, that's who they're bloody standing for -- you'd rightly feel like you'd been lied to if it turns out the Labour candidate doesn't actually agree with Labour policy. It's ridiculous.
Good points.
I think that what left-wing Labour candidates stand may be what most Labour voters think that the Labour Party stands for. Most people did not realise that Blair was continuing Conservative policies.
 
We don’t build an alternative through alphabetical libraries of Czech animation from 49-85 either. So, you lose.
So, in answer to the question, WPB or LP, you would say "abstain"? I will spoil my ballot paper, because the local Labour candidate is politically disgusting.
 
So, in answer to the question, WPB or LP, you would say "abstain"? I will spoil my ballot paper, because the local Labour candidate is politically disgusting.
Yes, I would abstain. That was my first response to the thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom