Is there anything in politics more shit than the Labour Party?

[The Mighty Thor]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

Backbenchers mainly.  I said front bench.  

I'm not arguing but almost 30% of his MPs ignored his tin pot hard man routine and voted with their conscience.

 

This will hurt him. Big time 

[JudyJudyJudy]

13 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Yes.  4 or 5 front team MPs.  Insignificant.

 

Jess Phillips has gone.  Stood up for her principles or for her constituency view.  Fair enough.  Didn't want to govern enough to choose compromise.  A shame for any Labour voters who viewed her as a governmental asset.

 

 

Well suppose that’s a positive . Another one who can’t seem to answer the simple question. What is a woman ? 

[Victorian]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

I'm not arguing but almost 30% of his MPs ignored his tin pot hard man routine and voted with their conscience.

 

This will hurt him. Big time 

 

It really wont.  They all backed the Labour amendment as well so they are on record as adopting the official party line.  They will be allowed this one rebellion and time to get on with other things.  Gaza is not the sole reason for their existence.

[the posh bit]

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Labour's amendment.  She voted for it as they all did.  Voting for both amendments is bizarre.

 

 

 

Some might look back on tonight and suggest that a Labour leader threatening to sack people for voting for the ceasefire of an ongoing civilian slaughter was bizarre too. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, the posh bit said:

 

Some might look back on tonight and suggest that a Labour leader threatening to sack people for voting for the ceasefire of an ongoing civilian slaughter was bizarre too. 

 

All front benchers must abide by collective responsibility or you have no coherent executive or executive-in-waiting.  International diplomacy requires realism,  compromise and pragmatism.  Starmer obviously knows that.

[Ked]

It's hard to know the strength of feeling amongst the constituents of the mps regarding Gaza.

But the election is a bit away.

Starmer is actually managing this not bad.

I'm not a fan but credit where its due.

 

[the posh bit]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

All front benchers must abide by collective responsibility or you have no coherent executive or executive-in-waiting.  International diplomacy requires realism,  compromise and pragmatism.  Starmer obviously knows that.

 

I guess the coming few weeks will be interesting. 

[Ked]

7 minutes ago, the posh bit said:

 

Some might look back on tonight and suggest that a Labour leader threatening to sack people for voting for the ceasefire of an ongoing civilian slaughter was bizarre too. 

He cannot as a wannabee leader deny Israels right to defend itself.

Especiallya wannabee of this country that did much worse to Iraq.

Your not wrong but it didn't do Blair much harm.

It's rinse and repeat

Edited November 15, 2023 by Ked
Missed a few words

[Gundermann]

22 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

56 Labour MPs out of 198 is not insignificant 

 

I'd say it is. Labour MPs are not known for their backbone or sticking to principles, more than a quarter of them voting against Kid Starver is a tad surprising to me.

 

Starmers's attempted 'compromise' of giving aid before bombing the kids to hell is typical forked-tongue of his ilk.

[the posh bit]

19 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I'm not arguing but almost 30% of his MPs ignored his tin pot hard man routine and voted with their conscience.

 

This will hurt him. Big time 

 

It should. 

[Gundermann]

16 minutes ago, the posh bit said:

 

Some might look back on tonight and suggest that a Labour leader threatening to sack people for voting for the ceasefire of an ongoing civilian slaughter was bizarre too. 

 

Not bizarre when you realise that most Labour leaders in recent decades have been utter ****s.

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, the posh bit said:

Its almost as if Keir Starmer knows that most of the electorate down south are rabid right-wing mutants and that any attempt to appear human and normal will be a clear vote loser. 🤔

 

The sad truth.

[the posh bit]

10 minutes ago, Ked said:

Especially a wannabee of this country that did much worse to Iraq.

Your not wrong but it didn't do Blair much harm.

It's rinse and repeat

 

Just now, Gundermann said:

 

Not bizarre when you realise that most Labour leaders in recent decades have been utter ****s.

 

Points taken. 👍

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

It really wont.  They all backed the Labour amendment as well so they are on record as adopting the official party line.  They will be allowed this one rebellion and time to get on with other things.  Gaza is not the sole reason for their existence.

With respect Vic that sounds like the turd polishing of the other mob.

 

It's a problem for Keith. It's a problem because voters, the ones he hasn't got, want a ceasefire. 

 

He's misread the room. 

 

 

[Victorian]

10 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

With respect Vic that sounds like the turd polishing of the other mob.

 

It's a problem for Keith. It's a problem because voters, the ones he hasn't got, want a ceasefire. 

 

He's misread the room. 

 

 

 

Yeah they want a ceasefire.  Lots of people want a ceasefire.  But people want other stuff as well.  Gaza is not the only show in town.  Where are people going to go to to be represented for a ceasefire and also to have a change of leadership?  

 

People can place Gaza at the very summit of their priorities if they choose to.  It might have some merit if the UK's influence was powerful enough to make a difference in isolation.  It isn't.  So I do not see any conceivable logic in people being so idealistic to the detriment of their own domestic choices.

 

The international mood will move towards a ceasefire in it's own time.  It's that kind of immensely complicated geo-political behemoth.  Rigid ideology and principles without practicality and compromise is utterly futile and naive.

[Victorian]

The SNP amendment,  in it's wording,  moved towards all sides to commit to a ceasefire.  We should reasonably expect Israel,  as a democratic state and ally,  to be capable of adopting the principle of a ceasefire.  But Hamas' stated mission statement is to continue hostilities and violence in all circumstances.  Where is the realistic prospect that the premise of that amendment can be achieved?

 

Utter naivety.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Utter idiots - they fell into the trap. Nobody in the Middle East will pay a blind bit of notice what an opposition party in the Uk will say. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

34 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Yeah they want a ceasefire.  Lots of people want a ceasefire.  But people want other stuff as well.  Gaza is not the only show in town.  Where are people going to go to to be represented for a ceasefire and also to have a change of leadership?  

 

People can place Gaza at the very summit of their priorities if they choose to.  It might have some merit if the UK's influence was powerful enough to make a difference in isolation.  It isn't.  So I do not see any conceivable logic in people being so idealistic to the detriment of their own domestic choices.

 

The international mood will move towards a ceasefire in it's own time.  It's that kind of immensely complicated geo-political behemoth.  Rigid ideology and principles without practicality and compromise is utterly futile and naive.

Excellent posting . I’m actually quite impressed with Starmer being firm with this issue . No use virtue signalling about an issue you really can’t do a thing about . He’s played it the right way 

[XB52]

It's good to see the labour party sticking up for their principles. Oh, sorry, they don't have any. At least the tories know and accept they are right wing racists and islamaphobes. Labour are just kiddy on right wing racists and islamaphobes with a dwindling few that still believe in true Labour values. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

12 hours ago, Victorian said:

The SNP amendment,  in it's wording,  moved towards all sides to commit to a ceasefire.  We should reasonably expect Israel,  as a democratic state and ally,  to be capable of adopting the principle of a ceasefire.  But Hamas' stated mission statement is to continue hostilities and violence in all circumstances.  Where is the realistic prospect that the premise of that amendment can be achieved?

 

Utter naivety.

Pretty much spot on. I don't believe the protesters and Humza actually want a ceasefire though. 

What they want is Israel to lay down its arms, allow Hamas to continue to attack it will impunity, and eventually wipe Israel from map.

That ain't going to happen.

[The Mighty Thor]

12 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Pretty much spot on. I don't believe the protesters and Humza actually want a ceasefire though. 

What they want is Israel to lay down its arms, allow Hamas to continue to attack it will impunity, and eventually wipe Israel from map.

That ain't going to happen.

No they want a ceasefire.

 

I know that's really difficult for you to wrap your head around. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Pretty much spot on. I don't believe the protesters and Humza actually want a ceasefire though. 

What they want is Israel to lay down its arms, allow Hamas to continue to attack it will impunity, and eventually wipe Israel from map.

That ain't going to happen.

 

Some extreme elements probably want that but surely the majority of protesting voices don't actually want Israel to end as a country,  in whatever form that would take.  

 

I agree though that the highly likely case of a one-way ceasefire is not actually a ceasefire at all.  It's an unspoken demand on Israel that it must continue to accept the threat to itself with no means of self defence.  Of course,  the overall conflict is infinitely more complicated than that when you take into account the West Bank and the occupying actions of settlers,  etc.

 

Ceasefire?  Yes.  But for it to mean anything than it must also come with widespread diplomatic pressure on all immediate actors and Iran.

[Gundermann]

6 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Pretty much spot on. I don't believe the protesters and Humza actually want a ceasefire though. 

What they want is Israel to lay down its arms, allow Hamas to continue to attack it will impunity, and eventually wipe Israel from map.

That ain't going to happen.

 

Utter. Bullshit.

[JudyJudyJudy]

 

BREAKING: Labour will NOT oppose the government's plan to deny benefit claimants access to free prescriptions and dental care. Instead, Labour's Shadow DWP Secretary Liz Kendall says that the government is not going far enough.

 

https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1725513841440694772?s=20

 

Im actually struggling to believe this is true? or a wind up

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

However

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

BREAKING: Labour will NOT oppose the government's plan to deny benefit claimants access to free prescriptions and dental care. Instead, Labour's Shadow DWP Secretary Liz Kendall says that the government is not going far enough.

 

https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1725513841440694772?s=20

 

Im actually struggling to believe this is true? or a wind up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't find anything - including in The Times - to say that Liz Kendall said anything like that, or to say that Labour are not opposed to the plans.

 

There's disclaimer on the tweet to say that readers "added context".  In other words, a warning that you might be reading disinformation.

 

As far as I can see, what Liz Kendall actually said was that the proposals wouldn't do anything to change the health service or jobcentre support. She also described the proposals as a failing approach that won't even scratch the surface of the problems - which doesn't sound like agreement or support to me.

 

If anyone has a source that confirms that Liz Kendall did say that Labour is supporting the plans, and that they "don't go far enough" - other than extremist left-wing disinformation sources - then I'm happy to be set right.

[The Mighty Thor]

Articles get posted that haven't been read.

 

Good headlines though 👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

I can't find anything - including in The Times - to say that Liz Kendall said anything like that, or to say that Labour are not opposed to the plans.

 

There's disclaimer on the tweet to say that readers "added context".  In other words, a warning that you might be reading disinformation.

 

As far as I can see, what Liz Kendall actually said was that the proposals wouldn't do anything to change the health service or jobcentre support. She also described the proposals as a failing approach that won't even scratch the surface of the problems - which doesn't sound like agreement or support to me.

 

If anyone has a source that confirms that Liz Kendall did say that Labour is supporting the plans, and that they "don't go far enough" - other than extremist left-wing disinformation sources - then I'm happy to be set right.

Well I did say it could be a “ wind up “ did you miss That bit ? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

I can't find anything - including in The Times - to say that Liz Kendall said anything like that, or to say that Labour are not opposed to the plans.

 

There's disclaimer on the tweet to say that readers "added context".  In other words, a warning that you might be reading disinformation.

 

As far as I can see, what Liz Kendall actually said was that the proposals wouldn't do anything to change the health service or jobcentre support. She also described the proposals as a failing approach that won't even scratch the surface of the problems - which doesn't sound like agreement or support to me.

 

If anyone has a source that confirms that Liz Kendall did say that Labour is supporting the plans, and that they "don't go far enough" - other than extremist left-wing disinformation sources - then I'm happy to be set right.

However the way Labour are going it could easily be true 

[JudyJudyJudy]

17 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Articles get posted that haven't been read.

 

Good headlines though 👍

Re read the tweet maybe 

[i wish jj was my dad]

I don't know if it is true or not but I'll post it anyway because I want to be outraged. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

And right on cue one of my “ obsessives” chips in  . Tragic . 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

However the way Labour are going it could easily be true 

 

I've heard you use a line like that before when you've said something false without checking the facts.

 

It doesn't matter how plausible you think it might be.  If it's fake, and you share it, you're part of the disinformation machine.

 

This time, you shared disinformation on behalf of the extreme left. That was careless, and a bit of thinking before you posted would have avoided it.

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I've heard you use a line like that before when you've said something false without checking the facts.

 

It doesn't matter how plausible you think it might be.  If it's fake, and you share it, you're part of the disinformation machine.

 

This time, you shared disinformation on behalf of the extreme left. That was careless, and a bit of thinking before you posted would have avoided it.

 

 

It’s still not clarified if true or not ! 

[Ulysses]

16 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

It’s still not clarified if true or not ! 

 

What?  No Mrs Slocombe giving the fingers?

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

What?  No Mrs Slocombe giving the fingers?

That’s for very special occasions . When someone gets right on my t*** ! 😂

 

You’re alright 

[Ulysses]

21 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

That’s for very special occasions . When someone gets right on my t*** ! 😂

 

You’re alright 

 

Why am I alright?

 

You said it hasn't been clarified if this is true or not.  But it has.  I posted what Liz Kendall actually said, and it's nothing like The Times or the extreme left X account tried to say it was.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/people-treasury-jeremy-hunt-government-liz-kendall-b1120902.html?ref=todayheadlines.live

 

If you claim she said something different, then what is it, and where can I read it?

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why am I alright?

 

You said it hasn't been clarified if this is true or not.  But it has.  I posted what Liz Kendall actually said, and it's nothing like The Times or the extreme left X account tried to say it was.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/people-treasury-jeremy-hunt-government-liz-kendall-b1120902.html?ref=todayheadlines.live

 

If you claim she said something different, then what is it, and where can I read it?

Where exactly has she said this ? 

[Ulysses]

30 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Where exactly has she said this ? 

 

I don't know where exactly she was when she said it.   The Standard quoted her, but didn't say.  It may have been a speech, or she may have replied to a media query.

 

Are you suggesting that the Standard is wrong, or is making it up? 

 

Do you have a source for what the extreme left X source claims she said?  The Times article doesn't quote her at all.

[JudyJudyJudy]

20 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I don't know where exactly she was when she said it.   The Standard quoted her, but didn't say.  It may have been a speech, or she may have replied to a media query.

 

Are you suggesting that the Standard is wrong, or is making it up? 

 

Do you have a source for what the extreme left X source claims she said?  The Times article doesn't quote her at all.

So you don’t know whether she refuted the claims ?

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

So you don’t know whether she refuted the claims ?

 

No James, I don't know where exactly she was at the time she made her remarks, which is what you asked me.  

 

I appreciate that admitting you made a bollix of it with grace is not in your repertoire, but doubling down on this without evidence makes you sound like a conspiracy nut. 

 

You posted something from an extreme left X account* saying that Liz Kendall said something.  The X account has no evidence of what she said, and neither do you.  On the other hand, I posted evidence of what she said, which is completely unlike what you posted.  Your only answer to that is "well it sounded plausible to me".

 

If you insist on trying to salvage something from the wreckage, post something as evidence of what Liz Kendall said, that contradicts the link I posted.  If she said it, no doubt you'll find it.  If you can't find it, you don't even have to admit you can't.  Just don't keep repeating your claim, or else you can send out Mrs Slocombe to bat for you.   

 

 

 

* This X account you were happy to repost and promote - have you checked out what they have to say about gender identity?   

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

account you were happy to repost and promote - have you checked out what they have to say about gender identity?   

No because surprisingly it’s not an obsession of mine !

 

 

the other parts are so long winded . Jezz . She might have she might not have , that’s life . 

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

No because surprisingly it’s not an obsession of mine !

 

 

the other parts are so long winded . Jezz . She might have she might not have , that’s life . 

 

If you say you're not obsessed, I'm 100% happy to accept that.  

 

And there's no might have.  She didn't.  That's real life.  You haven't posted anything to quote her, and I've looked and can't find anything.  If someone finds a link and wants to post it, good for them.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Ulysses

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

If you say you're not obsessed, I'm 100% happy to accept that.  

 

And there's no might have.  She didn't.  That's real life.  You haven't posted anything to quote her, and I've looked and can't find anything.  If someone finds a link and wants to post it, good for them.

 

 

Thanks for looking . I’ll look tomorrow . I’m off to sleep 💤 night 

[i wish jj was my dad]

So there is nothing to suggest that Liz Kendall made the comments attributed to her? 

We don't need more people posting shite on the Internet in a desperate attempt to be outraged IMO.  

We do need 'obsessives' to call arseholes out for deliberately  spreading lies though. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

7 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

So there is nothing to suggest that Liz Kendall made the comments attributed to her? 

We don't need more people posting shite on the Internet in a desperate attempt to be outraged IMO.  

We do need 'obsessives' to call arseholes out for deliberately  spreading lies though. 

He's full of sh1t. An attention seeking liar.

[JudyJudyJudy]

After reading this article I wouldn’t be too sure what she may or may not have said 

 

 

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2023/10/19/labour-dwp-more-of-the-same/

 

Surprised she’s not in the Tory party . 

[XB52]

2 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

He's full of sh1t. An attention seeking liar.

He just trolls the site, posting shite, normally ends up arguing with himself. The ignore function was made for him

[JudyJudyJudy]

20 minutes ago, XB52 said:

He just trolls the site, posting shite, normally ends up arguing with himself. The ignore function was made for him

Looks who talking.  IF i am " trolling" Im doing a great job it seems. Never fail to wind up you and the other two above . LOL.  Fabulous. Youse really need to take a chill pill. Your blood pressure mist be through the roof.

 

 

[Ulysses]