Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[So… Howard Philips]

Probably spend about 8 hours to see someone in A&E here whilst giving you a good 5 minutes of time and sending you on your way here.

The difference is that our A&E spends a disproportionate amount of time dealing with drunks and the drugged.

[killer-heels]

The difference is that our A&E spends a disproportionate amount of time dealing with drunks and the drugged.

Yep. So not only is the infrastructure shite but we also have a lot of vulnerable people and also a fair number of c*nts.

So I very much doubt the highly skilled people of HK would want to come to this place.

[J_Kopite]

So I very much doubt the highly skilled people of HK would want to come to this place.

Imagine not only the self-hatred but the pure privilege to come out with such a statement.

[Machae]

Probably spend about 8 hours to see someone in A&E here whilst giving you a good 5 minutes of time and sending you on your way here.

Bastards kept me waiting for 8 hours with a broken ankle and drunks, one after the other got taken in before me as they were deemed to be a higher priority.

They've now closed 3 a&es during the evening and weekends and expect those services to be absorbed by a hospital in another town.

Wont be too long before people are forced to pay for private hospitals, only a matter of time.

[Sangria]

Yup. Wonderful. They inherited free healthcare system from the British but improved it. And they won't even need contributing to NI.

They do have private hospitals too but their public healthcare was good enough.

A&E would see you in 2 hours. GPa are private using same day walk-in costing 20-40pounds including medication.

I wasn't impressed with the hospital stay, which certainly wasn't free.

[bornandbRED]

Starmer ‘not interested’ in discussing Rachel Reeves’ praise of Nancy Astor. No further comment on BLM either.

He gets less likeable by the week. I guess that’s what happens when you begin to drink the Kool aid.

[ShakaHislop]

Starmer ‘not interested’ in discussing Rachel Reeves’ praise of Nancy Astor. No further comment on BLM either.

He gets less likeable by the week. I guess that’s what happens when you begin to drink the Kool aid.

I just found out that she wasn't even the first female to be elected to the House of Commons.

[bornandbRED]

I just found out that she wasn't even the first female to be elected to the House of Commons.

Some of her finest selection:

‘Only a Jew like you would dare to be rude to me’

‘Nazism is a solution to Jews and Communism’

I’m sure the anti-Semitism gang are foaming at the mouth. Sounds worthy of a statue pull down to me.

[Zeb]

Some of her finest selection:

‘Only a Jew like you would dare to be rude to me’

‘Nazism is a solution to Jews and Communism’

I’m sure the anti-Semitism gang are foaming at the mouth. Sounds worthy of a statue pull down to me.

Yeah, was a few raised eyebrows about the Labour leadership supporting it at the time. Anti-semitism among the elites of the 30s, and the left, was not uncommon. Focus was on her being the first female MP to take her seat and facing years of mysogyny as others tried to force her out, which is true in terms of 'firsts'. Difficult histories.

[Snail]

Yeah, was a few raised eyebrows about the Labour leadership supporting it at the time. Anti-semitism among the elites of the 30s, and the left, was not uncommon. Focus was on her being the first female MP to take her seat and facing years of mysogyny as others tried to force her out, which is true in terms of 'firsts'. Difficult histories.

So, you know, in light of all that... Rachel Reeves?

[Zeb]

So, you know, in light of all that... Rachel Reeves?

I know that and don't try to score factional points from it, yeah. If both Corbyn and Reeves can agree on something like that then my issue is on how history is presented not whether to kick them out of the party for wanting just to remember the fluffy bits.

[Snail]

I know that and don't try to score factional points from it, yeah. If both Corbyn and Reeves can agree on something like that then my issue is on how history is presented not whether to kick them out of the party for wanting just to remember the fluffy bits.

Corbyn is no longer part of the equation so let’s forget about him. Reeves is Shadow Chancellor, should anything be done?

[bornandbRED]

I know that and don't try to score factional points from it, yeah. If both Corbyn and Reeves can agree on something like that then my issue is on how history is presented not whether to kick them out of the party for wanting just to remember the fluffy bits.

The slave trader bloke whose statue was pulled down. He was an integral part of the Bristolian economy. As was the slave trade in general. Lots of lads were at it back then.

See how this works?

The crystal clear lack of consistency and application is what sticks in the throat.

As for BLM - at a time when it seems especially important to condemn all forms of racism, his reaction has been not out of step with what one would expect from a MP on the other side of the house.

I couldn’t give two fucks about factions - I’ve not mentioned any. It’s just disappointing to have the leader of the Labour Party expressing views that are endorsed by far right clowns like Frottage. Then failing (refusing) to remediate them when given the opportunity.

[Zeb]

Corbyn is no longer part of the equation so let’s forget about him. Reeves is Shadow Chancellor, should anything be done?

Corbyn's a member of the PLP, it's the same equation, just someone on the NEC has a short memory.

@bored - my views are exactly the same as on the statue thread. Soz to disappoint with consistency on these things.

[Snail]

Corbyn's a member of the PLP, it's the same equation, just someone on the NEC has a short memory.

@bored - my views are exactly the same as on the statue thread. Soz to disappoint with consistency on these things.

I was asking you if anything should be done about Rachel Reeves, the current Shadow Chancellor.

Should anything be done about Rachel Reeves, the current Shadow Chancellor?

At the very least, was some kind of response from Starmer warranted?

[Zeb]

I was asking you if anything should be done about Rachel Reeves, the current Shadow Chancellor.

Should anything be done about Rachel Reeves, the current Shadow Chancellor?

I don't think a disciplinary process for selectively memorialising historical figures would be desireable, productive, or sane.

[Snail]

I don't think a disciplinary process for selectively memorialising historical figures would be desireable, productive, or sane.

Great, principled, consistent and zero-tolerance stuff. I read that in Starmer’s voice.

[Zeb]

Great, principled stuff. I read that in Starmer’s voice.

I'll lend to them if your liberal ones have gone missing.

[Sangria]

The slave trader bloke whose statue was pulled down. He was an integral part of the Bristolian economy. As was the slave trade in general. Lots of lads were at it back then.

See how this works?

The crystal clear lack of consistency and application is what sticks in the throat.

As for BLM - at a time when it seems especially important to condemn all forms of racism, his reaction has been not out of step with what one would expect from a MP on the other side of the house.

I couldn’t give two fucks about factions - I’ve not mentioned any. It’s just disappointing to have the leader of the Labour Party expressing views that are endorsed by far right clowns like Frottage. Then failing (refusing) to remediate them when given the opportunity.

And think of how disappointed many of us were when Corbyn took the lead in expressing a view that was the raison d'etre of Frottage. Not views that are typical of him. But the view that defined Frottage for a decade.

[Snail]

You lads need to stop talking about Corbyn and actually discuss the merits and shortcomings of the current leader of the Labour Party, and address criticisms with responses other than stuff that directly or indirectly circles back to Corbyn.

[Sangria]

You lads need to stop talking about Corbyn and actually discuss the merits and shortcomings of the current leader of the Labour Party, and address criticisms with responses other than stuff that directly or indirectly circles back to Corbyn.

I think a Labour government of any form is better than a Tory government. Do you agree?

[Snail]

I think a Labour government of any form is better than a Tory government. Do you agree?

Jesus Christ, obviously.

[Sangria]

Jesus Christ, obviously.

Does it then follow that maximising the Labour party's chances of getting elected to government is the right thing to do?

[Snail]

Does it then follow that maximising the Labour party's chances of getting elected to government is the right thing to do?

Are you feeling okay? What has this got to do with the post of mine that you quoted?

[Sangria]

Are you feeling okay? What has this got to do with the post of mine that you quoted?

All those complaints about how Starmer isn't standing up for your moral principles, and so on. How does standing up for those principles in opposition help those people said principles are supposed to be about? If doing so turns off more people than it attracts, how does it contribute towards a Labour government? If staying quiet allows Labour to focus on eroding support for the Tories, should Starmer be standing up as some are demanding he should do?

There, as you've asked for, an argument that focuses on the current Labour party, and completely ignores the previous leader. Do you agree with the above logic?

[Snail]

All those complaints about how Starmer isn't standing up for your moral principles, and so on. How does standing up for those principles in opposition help those people said principles are supposed to be about? If doing so turns off more people than it attracts, how does it contribute towards a Labour government? If staying quiet allows Labour to focus on eroding support for the Tories, should Starmer be standing up as some are demanding he should do?

There, as you've asked for, an argument that focuses on the current Labour party, and completely ignores the previous leader. Do you agree with the above logic?

That’s an utterly and incomprehensibly bleak and immoral way to look at things, fair play.

It still has nothing to do with my initial post, again, fair play.

[Sangria]

That’s an utterly and incomprehensibly bleak and immoral way to look at things, fair play.

It still has nothing to do with my initial post, again, fair play.

Which initial post are you talking about?

[Snail]

Which initial post are you talking about?

You lads need to stop talking about Corbyn and actually discuss the merits and shortcomings of the current leader of the Labour Party, and address criticisms with responses other than stuff that directly or indirectly circles back to Corbyn.

But that’s the one you’re referring to and obviously that had to be picked apart by an intellect greater than mine. I need to sleep anyway.

[ljycb]

All those complaints about how Starmer isn't standing up for your moral principles, and so on. How does standing up for those principles in opposition help those people said principles are supposed to be about? If doing so turns off more people than it attracts, how does it contribute towards a Labour government? If staying quiet allows Labour to focus on eroding support for the Tories, should Starmer be standing up as some are demanding he should do?

There, as you've asked for, an argument that focuses on the current Labour party, and completely ignores the previous leader. Do you agree with the above logic?

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you refuse to vote for Labour in December because of Brexit? If so, I don’t really see how a) your argument that “a Labour government of any form is better than a Tory government” holds much water and b) you can preach to Snail about the need to accept a Labour leader’s decision-making purely on the basis that doing the opposite would upset too many people.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Corbyn is no longer part of the equation so let’s forget about him. Reeves is Shadow Chancellor, should anything be done?

For what it is worth Rachel Reeves is Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. She is the shadow of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster - in plain speech the minister responsible for overseeing the Queens private estate. Both the ministerial position and it's shadow in opposition are essentially ceremonial roles. In the current government Gove holds the position alongside his 'real job' as Minister for the Cabinet Office.

The shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (i.e the opposite role to Rishi Sunak and as such the second most prominent role in the shadow cabinet behind Starmer) is Anneliese Dodds.     

[bornandbRED]

Corbyn is irrelevant. Not sure why anyone mentions him anymore. He could have been a flat earthing anti vax cannibal - and it wouldn’t bear any relation to the current leader. 

Does it then follow that maximising the Labour party's chances of getting elected to government is the right thing to do?

Mental gymnastics right here. Why is a lurch towards UKIP on race related issues ‘maximising the party’s chances’?

Why is the right wing going to magically vote for remainer London lawyer Keir Starmer, whose party - despite his attempts at painting otherwise, contains a sizeable and vocal left wing? Instead of voting for the architect of Brexit who is already satisfying a nationalist agenda?

Or maybe you’re right. Labour should start burning effigies EU leaders in Trafalgar Square next. Maybe get Keir at the front in a white robe?

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Corbyn is irrelevant. Not sure why anyone mentions him anymore.

For me the significance of Corbyn is that for the last 5 years Labour has been at war with itself. Wherever you lay the blame that is the fact of the matter. A dysfunctional party got the result it deserved in December (for disclosure I voted Labour).

If Labour spends the next 5 years fighting the same civil war but with roles reversed they will end up with the same electoral outcome.

We can't 'right the wrongs' (on both sides) of what happened to Labour under Corbyn. It's done - in the past. But we (whether we be on the right or the left of the party) do have it in our hands not to repeat the process.

If those of us that see ourselves as 'politically active' (i.e. an engagement above just casting a vote when asked) spend the next 5 years tearing chunks out of each other on social media rather than trying to engage with each other and the wider electorate it's not going to end well. 

[So… Howard Philips]

I'm not sure how the mental gymnastics are being performed to paint Reeves as an anti semite but seems to have originated in a piece in the Canary;

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2020/02/24/heres-why-laura-kuenssberg-and-centrists-spent-all-day-celebrating-a-rabid-antisemite/

Reeves has written a book celebrating a 100 years of women in Parliament. Astor was the first woman to take her seat (Markiewicz, in line with Sinn Fein policy, didn't take her seat) so the focus on her.

I haven't read the book but the Guardian review points out it covers female politicians from extremes such as Thatcher to Abbott, with a healthy dose of centrists like Shirley Williams in between. Without reading the book I don't know how much discussion there is of the subjects politics but if authoring this book makes her an anti semite does it make her a Thatcherite too?



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/15/women-of-westminster-by-rachel-reeves-review-the-mps-who-changed-politics

[stevo7]

Labour under Corbyn was like LFC under Souness. Get over it and move on.

[So… Howard Philips]

Labour under Corbyn was like LFC under Souness. Get over it and move on.

And Starmer is Houllier?

[stevo7]

And Starmer is Houllier?

I'm hoping he's Klopp.  , but more Benítez at the mo.

[Sangria]

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you refuse to vote for Labour in December because of Brexit? If so, I don’t really see how a) your argument that “a Labour government of any form is better than a Tory government” holds much water and b) you can preach to Snail about the need to accept a Labour leader’s decision-making purely on the basis that doing the opposite would upset too many people.

Does that mean that people complaining about Starmer now are no better than me then? I don't claim to be purer than pure.

[killer-heels]

You lads need to stop talking about Corbyn and actually discuss the merits and shortcomings of the current leader of the Labour Party, and address criticisms with responses other than stuff that directly or indirectly circles back to Corbyn.

The problem is he hasn't had a chance to illustrate that. That can only be shown in elections. If the next election is a bad defeat, he needs binning.

[Dr. Beaker]

And Starmer is Houllier?

Come back Gisela Stuart.

[Dr. Beaker]

Also can't seem to find what Reeves' offence is if anyone could point it out - genuine question, not trying to be a smartarse or anything.