Search results

Deputy leader take over. oh...

welcome to last year commrade! another revisionist who seems to think Starmer forced the entire party leadership, NEC, senior MPs into adopting a policy on Brexit.

dont know why this is blamed on the media when its said by Labour MPs and activists.

Nandy comes across well, but still wants to tax wealth for the sake of it. Long-Bailey trotted policies like the green new deal, i bet she hasnt a clue what it entails. im not convinced they really know why they lost so many seats, or what to do to change it.

would have to question any polling that puts Thornberry ahead of Long-Bailey, but it supports theory Nandy could sneak through the middle on second preferences. 8/1 :wink:

simple, would have split the backing and Momentum want Long-Bailey.

i had no idea Starmer had so much influence, convincing the NEC and Labour conference to vote for the policy adopted.

clearly Corbyn wasnt the right leader then, couldnt lead his own party and caved to the Blairites.

that's a funny way to describe devolution.

amazes me we still have a single path for higher education (NVQ largely dismissed), can only assume that universities are resistant to any change.

exactly. we need to stop and ask do we need this policy, or if this is the right way achieve an objective. we dont need either gigabit fibre either way, but get bogged down in which team is promising it.

:glare: that isnt a plan for delivery, its a sales pitch, says why they think we need it and what they think it will benefit. how would they actually deliver full fibre to the premises by 2025? how many additional engineers would be recruited, what legislation would be needed to circumvent...

dont recall any plan from Labour, beyond nationalise telecoms. sadly our politicians are very good at this, promising headline policies without any detail on how they'll actually be delivered.

you are quite right about refining what is meant by those saying they are socialist or social democrats. trouble is that for many on the left socialism really does mean a moving towards Marxism, controlling banks, communication, state owning the means of production etc. see Labour last...

traditional Labour, not Momentum, not on message. they presumably hope to have a more united Long-Bailey/Rayner team.

not sure he does. he comes across very well presentation but no real politick. a center left Cameron with a desire to do something, not clear what.

thats sad you feel that way. sure some indivuduals are not always going to better off, its about wider population being richer, and not just in raw money but general well being and standard of living. my parents and grandparents knew out door toilets, no central heating, common ailments that...

it isnt. a awful lot of words to say how terrible capitialism is and how we're poorer, when anyone can speak to their parents or grandparents to understand how much better off we are than ever before.

always amusing come back to the observation socialism has failed, to claim either it wasnt socialist enough or the wrong type.

i can stop you there, you're making an assumption that a CEO receives options. it may be common but not a given. so the point stands that you claim that social status is determine by their entitlement to share inducements. also they typically dont determine options themselves, its controlled by...