Like all Westminster parties, a party 99% composed of grifters who see politics as a means of becoming wealthier. Behind the scenes, most Tories and Labour mps socialise and generally share the same views.
It should come as no surprise, because they are not a liberal party. Labour are first and foremost a workers union party, and no matter how many BAME or LGBTQ+ policies they put out, they can all be easily overturned or replaced because not everyone in the party either believes in it, as its not a founding principal.
If you want a Liberal Labour party, then we would need to establish one, but trying to change an organisation as large as this is going to be an uphill battle.
I guess the other way would be to create a Labour Against non-White British group as a honeypot to oust applicants, but as we can see from this it’s slow process. An entire group for discussing how to fuck over voters, and they only decide to suspend one?
I find it difficult to understand how you believe Labour represents the interests of workers in any meaningful sense.
Labour is primarily a liberal party, and has been for many years. The union of liberals and socialists broke down in the 80s.
I don’t. But the party is much more aligned with Unions than with social liberalism.
I don’t think that Labour is fit for any purpose, and hasn’t been for a very long time.
[Edit] Please note I referred to it as a party for the Unions, and not one with the interests of workers.
Ok ive edited because i think i see what you’re trying to say.
You think that alignment with unions is antithetical to socially liberal values (such as lgbt) ?
Not at all. Just completely unrelated.
UKIP is against the death penalty in their manifesto. Does that mean I agree with them?
Its unrelated to their main driving force and if something happens to change public opinion it would be dropped.
Unions support LGBTQ policies, so Labour support them. But I am under no illusion that they are driven by LGBTQ policies and if there was a Union leader who was against an LGBTQ policy, and someone from the community who was against a Union policy I personally think they would side with the big group thats giving donations.
Labour are only partly funded by unions, and they by no means dictate policies. If unions dictated policies then we wouldn’t have this wishy washy workers bill and they would remove the anti-union laws.
I agree they do side with donation givers, which is why they are a bunch of private healthcare Zionist dweebs.
What you are asking for it sounds like is stronger party democracy which i couldn’t support more. However, the unions are central to any labour movement so it makes sense they are at the center of the party. Labour members do still vote on all policies technically but Starmer has centralised the process further so that the leader has complete control. Its also very expensive to send delegates to conference (in order to vote).
Cool, it sounds like we are in agreement generally. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but in my opinion they are not a socially liberal party. Although is “wishy washy” policies better or worse than nothing?
Better than nothing is a bit of a bug bear of mine. We are constantly told labour are better than nothing (ie tories).
If i am starving and need 2000 calories a day, would i rather have 1500 or 1200 calories? Obviously I’d rather have 1500. However this kind of comparison is too simplistic .
I would be right to ask why there isn’t enough calories. Taking the 1500 only legitimises that deal, when its clearly insufficient. I know both will starve me eventually so clearly i have to get those extra 500 calories. The only option is to reject both options and demand the 500 calories.
So far …
If you want a socially liberal party then being a part of a group that looks to mock and belittle minorities should be unacceptable.
Having a high profile token sacrifice, and seeing how much demand for blood remains is not a socially liberal policy.
Okay, I see your point, but they are still investigating. Give them a bit of a chance
I guess if this were reversed, so if this was an anti-labour unions group, and if a senior member was suspended for talking about wanting the Union to collapse then people would be up in arms that they are allowing any anti-union group to live inside Labour. But you’d be okay with that as long as they said they were investigating?
Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned being part of that group earns a suspension with a review, not the other way around.
Isn’t it just an edgy humour group that has gone too fast? A lso, you can be assessed to WhatsApp groups without your approval.
Hence why i would talk about suspending while investigating not immediate dismissal.
Its all about priorities. If they are a liberal party moreso than a Union party then they would want to avoid even the appearance of being anti-socially liberal. Because they don’t it shows that they really don’t care about their appearance of being a liberal party and it’s just a side hussle to keep the edge quiet. It would be dropped if it interfered with their main objectives (whatever they are).
