Starmer's vision quest

[multitool]

Why would he not... considering he was in the shadow cabinet and campaigned for Corbyn.I mean a Labour leader can't bring himself to say any Labour government would have been better than this...feck he gives me more and more reasons to think nah.

Because its a hypothetical, and its about as useful as me pointing out that if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle*.

Beyond that, Corbyn is an anti-semite terrorist sympathiser.

(yes, I know he is neither of those things, but the right-wing media did such a good job of convincing the public that he was that he is utterly toxic. Only an idiot would go there. Besides, isnt it de riguer to pretend that your predecessor was absolutely nothing to do with you and your current party? We have, after all a new Tory government only in its 5th month of power)

*It's a rhetorical device, Aurora. Don't get excited.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nothing you post is likely to induce excitement in anybody. Quite the opposite. Also: rent free.

Starmer's got himself in an impossible position now. He's not delivering on manifesto promises. He's trying to put clear water between himself and Corbyn but just comes off as Tory-lite now. He'll fence sit til it hurts. If Labour win the next election it will be simply because the Tory vote don't turn out.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Unifying the party.

View: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1615722135317786624?t=z7yaVsekOKtysCNc_50CfQ&s=19

 

[C R]

Unifying the party.

View: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1615722135317786624?t=z7yaVsekOKtysCNc_50CfQ&s=19

 

[BoldonLad]

Unifying the party.

View: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1615722135317786624?t=z7yaVsekOKtysCNc_50CfQ&s=19

History. repeating itself

 

[Deleted member 49]

LoL....what a fecking pr1ck he is.

View: https://twitter.com/PoliticsMoments/status/1616088600529235970?t=sE_nR62REMpT9q-h0WqSlg&s=19

 

[newfhouse]

View: https://twitter.com/bazakemedia/status/1615745404909547521?s=61&t=RaVOdmz4hfB59oKpAnN5MA

 

[C R]

View: https://twitter.com/bazakemedia/status/1615745404909547521?s=61&t=RaVOdmz4hfB59oKpAnN5MA

Please, tell me that's a parody, I can't tell any more.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Shocked....it's pathetic.

View: https://twitter.com/davidrkadler/status/1616435238636294144?t=PS9Xzjaepo2F20QgWRVc_g&s=19

 

[Deleted member 49]

Starmer: ‘Our message at the next election must be that we're different to the party Britain rejected in 2019. We must say never again will Labour be a party of protest, not public service…or allow hate to spread unchallenged. Economic stability is foundation of our ambitions’

 

[theclaud]

 

[Deleted member 49]

Any criticism of Israel is forbidden 🙄

View: https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1620775344017117185?t=Y723zt_scjafsK_jp_nk2Q&s=19

 

[BoldonLad]

Any criticism of Israel is forbidden 🙄

View: https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1620775344017117185?t=Y723zt_scjafsK_jp_nk2Q&s=19

Interesting.

Is it "reasonable" for a group to impose, or attempt to impose a completely uniform view of a particular subject (criticism of Israel, in your example), or, should we accept that a variety of views exist, providing that no actual "harm" is done, as a result?

Perhaps, many would say that as leader, Starmer is "entitled" to impose "rules"?

Personally, I am unsure what the correct answer is, but, from a Political/Electability viewpoint, I do understand completely Starmer's stance, given the sh*t storm which hit Corbyn.

 

[theclaud]

Interesting.

Is it "reasonable" for a group to impose, or attempt to impose a completely uniform view of a particular subject (criticism of Israel, in your example), or, should we accept that a variety of views exist, providing that no actual "harm" is done, as a result?

Perhaps, many would say that as leader, Starmer is "entitled" to impose "rules"?

Personally, I am unsure what the correct answer is, but, from a Political/Electability viewpoint, I do understand completely Starmer's stance, given the sh*t storm which hit Corbyn.

LOL. A lot of the 'shitstorm that hit Corbyn' was of the making of the same bunch of undemocratic control freaks who are now continuing what they started by imposing rules designed specifically to disenfranchise their political opponents. It would be nice if those who allowed their anti-Corbynism to empty their brains at the time and have only just noticed that these people are absolute dangers could own their gullibility rather than continuing to treat it as a legitimate party discipline concern.

 

[BoldonLad]

LOL. A lot of the 'shitstorm that hit Corbyn' was of the making of the same bunch of undemocratic control freaks who are now continuing what they started by imposing rules designed specifically to disenfranchise their political opponents. It would be nice if those who allowed their anti-Corbynism to empty their brains at the time and have only just noticed that these people are absolute dangers could own their gullibility rather than continuing to treat it as a legitimate party discipline concern.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, but, I would agree, attempting to close down views you disagree with doesn't seem right. But, doesn't that just bring us back to the "freedom of speech" argument?