Jump to content

What is the point of Labour ?


pawpar

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

Their Unionism is above any socialist feelings. Which is what has been killing Scottish Labour for a decade or more.

No such thing as unionism anymore. There is no "union" of the UK. This was confirmed by the supreme court.

Call them what they really are.......... UK Nationalists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

No such thing as unionism anymore. There is no "union" of the UK. This was confirmed by the supreme court.

Call them what they really are.......... UK Nationalists. 

There must be millions of voters in England who are completely disenfranchised with the only two parties who have any chance of forming a government having no electoral appeal to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught a clip of Mick Lynch addressing a rally regarding the new anti-strike legislation & he mentioned that there were representatives of the SNP, Greens & Labour backbenchers in attendance giving support (may have been on the platform) & highlighted that not one single Labour frontbenchers had the balls to turn up in support. Labour has no purpose with the currrent leadership. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Anyone else think that if this lady was leader, people might begin to take Labour seriously?

 

 

 

If you thought the press was bad with Corbyn, they'd be ten times worse on her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every word out of Starmer’s mouth confirms what he is.

“Keir Starmer Says He Would Rather Sit Next To Piers Morgan Than Jeremy Corbyn”

The Arsenal fan was asked which of his two fellow supporters he would prefer to watch a match with.

Without hesitation, Starmer replied: “Piers Morgan.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Every word out of Starmer’s mouth confirms what he is.

“Keir Starmer Says He Would Rather Sit Next To Piers Morgan Than Jeremy Corbyn”

The Arsenal fan was asked which of his two fellow supporters he would prefer to watch a match with.

Without hesitation, Starmer replied: “Piers Morgan.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

Was it followed by ‘so I’ve got him within slapping distance’? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Was it followed by ‘so I’ve got him within slapping distance’? 

If only.  I’m sure if Starmer was asked the same question with Morgan replaced by Benjamin Netanyahu then he’d still be ahead of Corbyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Every word out of Starmer’s mouth confirms what he is.

“Keir Starmer Says He Would Rather Sit Next To Piers Morgan Than Jeremy Corbyn”

The Arsenal fan was asked which of his two fellow supporters he would prefer to watch a match with.

Without hesitation, Starmer replied: “Piers Morgan.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

It’s not a surprise he said Piers Morgan.
 

This bit is even worse. 

Quote

Elsewhere in his interview, which took place at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Starmer said he would rather be there than Westminster.

 

Edited by MazzyStar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see labour have come out in support of no new investment in the North Sea whilst also saying they need oil and gas to support the transition to greener energy. The North sea is a mature area where many of the producing oilfields are nearing the end of their commercial life. For every barrel of oil produced, the asset has to produce about 9 barrels of water. To produce these 9 barrels of water requires a lot of energy. Any new fields, such as Cambo, will not produce significant quantities of water for a period of time so the new fields have a better footprint than the current ones. So why not develop the new fields and shut down the older ones? 

Also, currently old fields are decommissioned at great expense. Could they not be cleaned and left or toppled as a benefit to marine ecosystems?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aufc said:

I see labour have come out in support of no new investment in the North Sea whilst also saying they need oil and gas to support the transition to greener energy. The North sea is a mature area where many of the producing oilfields are nearing the end of their commercial life. For every barrel of oil produced, the asset has to produce about 9 barrels of water. To produce these 9 barrels of water requires a lot of energy. Any new fields, such as Cambo, will not produce significant quantities of water for a period of time so the new fields have a better footprint than the current ones. So why not develop the new fields and shut down the older ones? 

Also, currently old fields are decommissioned at great expense. Could they not be cleaned and left or toppled as a benefit to marine ecosystems?  

In fairness this is a tricky one. Everybody who knows, knows that oil and gas (and coal) are going to be needed during the transition to greener energy, and the way we're going in new propulsion technologies (ie, not very well, battery factories closing etc), failing to reduce traffic, etc, we're going to need more of it for longer.

 

But then you also have to contend with Greta et al if you aim to keep even one outlet going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aufc said:

I see labour have come out in support of no new investment in the North Sea whilst also saying they need oil and gas to support the transition to greener energy. The North sea is a mature area where many of the producing oilfields are nearing the end of their commercial life. For every barrel of oil produced, the asset has to produce about 9 barrels of water. To produce these 9 barrels of water requires a lot of energy. Any new fields, such as Cambo, will not produce significant quantities of water for a period of time so the new fields have a better footprint than the current ones. So why not develop the new fields and shut down the older ones? 

Also, currently old fields are decommissioned at great expense. Could they not be cleaned and left or toppled as a benefit to marine ecosystems?  

Labour getting splinters in their arses (again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Angus McNeil had a majority of only 2438 last time, but it's a small electorate. The "Personal Life" section of his Wiki page is quite eventful but most of it happened before he was last elected with 45% of the vote. He seems to like picking fights with Holyrood on occasion which might go down well with the locals. Doubt Torquil has much of a chance, but he's a local too, so who knows? Not me obviously..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pawpar changed the title to What is the point of Labour ?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...