Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour Party

Blair made mistakes imagine that. The brutal fact is Blair did far more for those in need than corbyn ever did because corbyn was never able to achieve power.
I am not really interested in holding left wing ideas for the sake of them, I am interested in making changes in peoples lives.

I don't think that the wish for more left wing party is to make anyone feel better but is a wish to present a different viewpoint, and not let the right wing set the agenda. When Labour moves to the right the Conservatives move even further to the right, and right wing views are regarded as what is normal.
When politicians like Rachel Reeves said in the New Labour years that Labour was not the party for unemployed people, those sort of views gave permission for the Coalition to introduce the punitive welfare reforms. That bill should have been vigorously opposed, not just abstained on. People who are either unable to work or cannot find work need someone to represent them, not treat them as not worth fighting for or people to be put on show for entertainment on poverty porn reality t.v.

The bill to prevent undercover police from prosecution should also have been opposed, not abstained on. Decent undercover police need to be exonerated of crime after a full investigation, otherwise will they not live under suspicion that any crime was just ignored. Also, the women that were lied to and used need to have their feelings known.

More, when the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats tried to blame the International banking crisis on Labour frittering away money on schools and hospitals, did Labour argue against that narrative, hardly at all, they just said they approved of austerity likec George Osborne. Austerity was wrong and damaging and unnecessary and Labour should have been stronger and argued against it.

So called centrists might well be right that the country prefers a right wing narrative, but surely there should be a party who is willing to try to present a different way.

Anniebach

Perhaps those of us looking at the Foot and Corbyn leaderships and the fact they took us into the Thatcher government and now Johnson government are thinking -
no more far left dreams please

Well Thatcher said Blair was her greatest legacy, so at least we know what he was really. Perhaps some of us recognise that. It isn't much use having left wing ideas if you hand power to someone who simply pursues policies which replicate Tory principles.

Anniebach

Perhaps those of us looking at the Foot and Corbyn leaderships and the fact they took us into the Thatcher government and now Johnson government are thinking -
no more far left dreams please

And Thacher led us to Major and then the great Blair. That "socialist" government gave us the wonderful virtues of Zero Hour Employment Contracts, Gig Economy Terms of Working, the Banking Crisis and the Iraq War to name but a few. All that was dictated by the Bankers, the Arms Manufacturers and even that great socialist Rupert Murdoch as the terms and conditions of buying the Labour Party.

Great stuff, and Starmer and his cohorts give every indication they would like to repeat that performance.

Perhaps those of us looking at the Foot and Corbyn leaderships and the fact they took us into the Thatcher government and now Johnson government are thinking -
no more far left dreams please

Iam64

Thanks trisher, for clarifying that the 'left' in the Labour movement are prepared to allow the rise of the right 'until things become unbearable' because that will lead to a socialist government. I remember work colleagues who wouldn't support Blair because of that belief system. Look where its's got this country. Public services devastated, the very people most in need of a Labour government disenfranchised, without job security, the NHS being privatised before our eyes.
Inability to compromise for the greater good doesn't seem to me to be in any way fair or wise.

Well perhaps those colleagues were right, and those of us sucked in to the Blair government in the belief that things would get better were completely fooled, because it was Blair's failures to establish a social housing building programme, to protect and promote Union membership through legislation, to make real and lasting changes in legislation about pay, working conditions, housing rental and the NHS that led to the situation we have now. And perhaps those of us looking at Starmer are thinking "We won't get fooled again".
All Tory lite does is pave the way for more right wing policies.

They are not interested in government. Because in government you cant be pure, you compromise, you make mistakes, you get things catastrophically wrong.
That's not an option for those who wont take responsibility.

Although looking through this forum I see there are those that see people living in that situation amusing.

That's a bizarre accusation. Evidence?

I would still prefer to live under a Blair type government than under any tory government.

I am able to manage thinking about two things at once so I can worry about antisemitism and the issues you describe.

Galaxy

No there is no compromise on anti semitism.

Labours arguments on anti-Semitism mean nothing when you are from a rural area and forced to sleep in a van on city industrial estates to find work well paid enough to pay the rent and other bills for your family back home.

Although looking through this forum I see there are those that see people living in that situation amusing.

By the way, it was the Blair good government that allowed zero hours contracts and gig economy terms of working to come about and flourish. That was the only price of selling the Labour Party to the bankers, arms dealers and even Rupert Murdoch.

No there is no compromise on anti semitism.

Iam64

Thanks trisher, for clarifying that the 'left' in the Labour movement are prepared to allow the rise of the right 'until things become unbearable' because that will lead to a socialist government. I remember work colleagues who wouldn't support Blair because of that belief system. Look where its's got this country. Public services devastated, the very people most in need of a Labour government disenfranchised, without job security, the NHS being privatised before our eyes.
Inability to compromise for the greater good doesn't seem to me to be in any way fair or wise.

Where is the compromise in Starmer's attitude actions of the last few days? What is Starmer's policies on job security, does anyone know for he never says anything on the issue.

If you lead a supposedly "broad umbrella party" you must lead for all you wish to have under that cover and not for one exclusive section, for in that will lay division and breakup as we see happening now.

Only those who need a labour government least would think this was a good strategy. It's not even a game with an end in sight, so thirty years of families suffering for example, because there is no guarantee that some form of socialism would emerge, in face history tells us the opposite.

Thanks trisher, for clarifying that the 'left' in the Labour movement are prepared to allow the rise of the right 'until things become unbearable' because that will lead to a socialist government. I remember work colleagues who wouldn't support Blair because of that belief system. Look where its's got this country. Public services devastated, the very people most in need of a Labour government disenfranchised, without job security, the NHS being privatised before our eyes.
Inability to compromise for the greater good doesn't seem to me to be in any way fair or wise.

So no purpose - just to make you feel better.

Galaxy

For what purpose.

It will give the left in the Labour movement a new political organisation that truly represents their views.

It would give those in the electorate with left leaning views a choice of political parties. That being, a Tory Lite party under the leadership of Starmer, or, a real core value socialist party that truly speaks out for the working people of Britain.

For what purpose.

AbeLincoln

The trouble with this comment is that the writer believes a left wing Party will be formed, even more ludicrous the writer believes that it will get into power. The truth is any splinter Party will go the way of the SDP, Change and all the others oblivion. It might because of our ludicrous voting system create a perpetual Tory hegemony. How that helps the poor and deprived that the left allege to care about G_d only knows.

Any new party that is formed with the backing of the trades unions and their member's political levy subscriptions would be very well funded to the level that the present Labour Party are at now. That would make them a powerful force in any election, for it is funding that gets the message across when it comes to the ballot box.

A fresh left wing party would provide a home for all who are not wanted in Starmer's would be Tory lite party. If then the electorate decides they do not wish to elect such a party, so be it. It should still then stick to its core political policies as laid out in my earlier post.

AbeLincoln It's simple really there is a belief amongst some of the left wing that simply tinkering with a few things on the periphery as Blair did is in fact useless. That the huge inequalities which now exist, the real lack of workers' rights, the low pay economy and the high cost of rentals is his legacy. Having another similar government would not change things. The only solution is to allow the rise of the right wing until conditions become unbearable and a socialist government is elected which will change legislation about working practices and accommodation. I'm not sure I agree with this concept but I can certainly see where it comes from.
The idea that a left wing LP would go the way of the SDP is mistaken. This party would have the backing of the Unions

MaizieD- just asking, is your post aimed at those who support Corbyn and believe there is a need for a pure left Party?

Mostly, yes, Iam

It's like a continuation of the total sh*tshow that has been running for the last 4 years.

I didn't even have a problem with Corbyn or LP manifestos. But he isn't a party leader.

The trouble with this comment is that the writer believes a left wing Party will be formed, even more ludicrous the writer believes that it will get into power. The truth is any splinter Party will go the way of the SDP, Change and all the others oblivion. It might because of our ludicrous voting system create a perpetual Tory hegemony. How that helps the poor and deprived that the left allege to care about G_d only knows.

MaizieD- just asking, is your post aimed at those who support Corbyn and believe there is a need for a pure left Party?

I share your dread of a future with tory party rampant, dominating every Parliament with a scatter of opposition parties who have no hope of being the government

I think that you're all forgetting a few rather, IMO, vital points

1) at the end of the Brexit transition in January all hell is going to be let loose.

2) the tories are working hard at becoming the ruling party in perpetuity by attacking the rule of law via the judiciary, marginalising Parliament, weakening the Electoral Commission, and by voter suppression. They have 4 years to do as they wish and will welcome a weakened and divided opposition while they do it.

3) voters have shown no great enthusiasm for labour policies and even less enthusiasm for Jeremy Corbyn, so if you're looking to him to lead a new party it's looking pretty doomed from the start.

4) you will need to get your economics sorted because believing in the 'household economy' model will chain any party to the neoliberal economic agenda and constrain any radical action, such as UBI or a job guarantee

It doesn't seem like the best moment to choose to split the LP.

I also think you are making lots of assertions about Starmer without producing much evidence, apart from your hatred of the centre.

I dread a future with a triumphant tory party rampant and three or four splinter parties.

Indeed but what I am saying is there is something about culture, so I am sure their handling of sex discrimination was good but that doesnt mean there still isnt a culture of misogyny in certain parts of the labour party, I dont really believe that availability of training was the issue I am afraid, its rarely as simple as that when it comes to the culture and ethos of an organisation.