Cranks led Labour to its worst election defeat since the 1930s.
Frankly, they need to shut the fuck up for a while.
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
10 points (91.7% liked)
UK Politics
3103 readers
335 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I thought Labour was supposed to be a broadchurch of ideas and principles? Or is that only when the right of the party is on the back foot and feel a bit unsure of their position?
Wasn't such a broadchurch of ideas and principles in the Corbyn era, was it?
Ideological purity over any kind of common sense.
I dunno, that first shadow cabinet had a decent spread, especially when you compare it to what we've got at the moment. Anything to the left of Ed Milliband has been forcibly removed from the front bench.
Corbyn wasn't a great leader, but the way in which certain factions within the party went after him from the word go is a stain on what is supposed to be a democratic institution.
And the reason why we are so desperate for a AV/PR type system.
If we did then the different shades of each side could legitimately find their own place and voice.
Yes that means that you give a small voice to those you may not want to, but you also get a small voice yourself. That's democracy.
Stating the obvious is hard for some to accept. Labour and the Tories are purely about protectionism.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In her speech to Labour conference, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves was cheered as she declared that "you can't tax and spend your way to growth".
Yet in the same venue, a little earlier, there was also a standing ovation for the leader of the Unite union Sharon Graham when she called for the party to be more bold and to take the energy companies back in to public ownership.
Mick Lynch, leader of the RMT union, addressed a fringe meeting this weekend and declared that he wouldn't be saying "this or that" about Keir Starmer as "we need to get the Tories out and that means getting him in".
And Richard Burgon, secretary of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, said he understood "how difficult it can be with the current leadership" but said: "Wouldn't it be fantastic to see all the Tories out, and Labour again get the keys to 10 Downing Street?"
The Labour to Win grouping, which got behind the Starmer leadership when he embarked on a journey away from the Corbyn era, have helped him grab control of many of the levers of power - including the ruling National Executive Committee.
But they feel Angela Rayner, who oversaw a robust workers' rights agenda, or Andy Burnham (were he to get a parliamentary seat) and who is re-regulating transport in Manchester, might be better placed to succeed than Rachel Reeves or Wes Streeting, as they are more acceptable to the unions.
The original article contains 1,179 words, the summary contains 244 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!