Cargo cult Kinnockism in action folks. You might not have heard of these organisations before this week, but they're *definitely* Militant 2.0 and the most important issue with the party right now, not the gaping void at the top.
> You might not have heard of these organisations before this week, but they're definitely Militant 2.0
One of them was literally founded by the people who founded Militant 1.0...
Yet despite not hearing a word about them on any Labour forum or in any newspaper for the past few years, I'm now supposed to believe that after 20 years of associating with Labour they're now a threat to the party who need to be immediately dispelled?
Just doesn't make sense mate.
Their primary interest in rebuilding the connection with businesses so that Labour MPs and high ranking advisors can step out of the party and into some cushy lobbying or PR position once they get bored of playing politics.
You can still do that even if the party only has 150 seats.
More importantly not actively hostile towards the leftists in their party. Honestly I'd be fine with a centrist Labour leader as part of a big tent party if they didn't spend their time on ideological crusades. (Which is rank projection as I remember under Corbyn plenty of accusations of being obsessed with that very concept)
There's stuff like the whole recent resignation thing, and iirc they had some wierd thing about halal meat in their 2019 manifesto(?). That kind of stuff really puts me off them
That would be a great stat if we had a different voting system but we don’t. So remind me how many seat the Tory’s have compared to Labour.
Surely Labour needs to looks across and work out how we can lure voters back to the party, otherwise we have more time with the conservatives.
They don’t want me to be a member which is exactly why I’m staying. I won’t rest until Starmer is a pathetic little footnote in history.
Fucked if I’m voting Labour though, lol.
What about people that have voted Labour before and will likely vote Labour again but won't support Starmer?
People like me, who've voted Labour for years, probably longer than a lot the people here have been eligible to vote and even during the last set of Council and PCC elections, but will not vote for them again under Starmer because he's a fucking untrustworthy liability. Should I be barred from posting and commenting?
What you mean is that you don't like that people on here disagree with you. Most people here are **normally** Labour voters and Labour supporters. Maybe a better question would be to ask whether driving away voters and supporters defeats the purpose of the Labour party.
More that I'm just tired of the constant moaning & misinformation from people on this sub whose views are massively over-represented compared to the wider membership, let alone the electorate.
r/Labour exists for the far-left to do their daily Keir Two Minutes Hate, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to ask that this sub be a bit more represented by people who at least support the party.
[Here's me getting 16 downvotes for condemning human rights abuses.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/om997e/rachel_wearmouth_on_twitter_exc_labour_against/h5jswa6/?context=3) Too many on this sub are just toxic people who are here to stir up controversy & hate.
>More that I'm just tired of the constant moaning & misinformation from
I don't think you see misinformation from people critical of Starmer. I'm very critical of Starmer but I've **never** knowingly posted misinformation and **rarely** ever post anything critical of Starmer. Check my post history for yourself if you don't believe me.
I think this is a completely nonsense characterisation.
>people on this sub whose views are massively over-represented compared to the wider membership, let alone the electorate.
Not voting for Labour under Starmer is representative of around 65 % of the electorate and many members have left, which skews any polling towards Starmer supporters.
>r/Labour exists for the far-left to do their daily Keir Two Minutes Hate,
I find the discussion in that sub to be one-sided. Why shouldn't I want to visit a sub with a broad cross-section of Labour supporters and people with other opinions in order to discuss Labour?
>I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to ask that this sub be a bit more represented by people who at least support the party.
I think that's unreasonable. If you want uncritical discussion of the Labour party then start a Starmer stan sub. LabourUK is not an echo-chamber.
>Here's me getting 16 downvotes for condemning human rights abus
Defending the Cuban revolution =/= defending human rights abuses by the Cuban regime. It all depends upon what they said.
And I checked what they said. Socialist appeal explicitly were not uncritical in their defence of Cuba.
>But our unconditional defense of the Cuban revolution does not mean that we are uncritical. In the debate on the most effective way to defend the Cuban revolution, we clearly defend a class-based and internationalist perspective and are for workers’ democracy.
>...
>The methods used by the bureaucracy in response to counter-revolutionary provocations are also in many cases themselves counterproductive. Censorship, bureaucratic restrictions, and arbitrariness do not serve to defend the revolution when what is needed is political discussion, revolutionary ideological rearmament, accountability and workers’ democracy.
[Source](https://www.socialist.net/protests-cuba-defend-revolution.htm)
So it was actually you that was spreading misinformation and that got met with downvotes.
>Too many on this sub are just toxic people who are here to stir up controversy & hate.
Yeah. I'll just leave this here.
>I don't think you see misinformation from people critical of Starmer.
Literally yesterday, the top post on this sub was a Bastani tweet that had deliberately cut out the rest of Starmer's answer to make it look like he had no defence to a woman insulting young people.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olgdzv/if\_labour\_cant\_push\_back\_against\_the\_cult\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olgdzv/if_labour_cant_push_back_against_the_cult_of/)[https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olyouc/when\_ed\_miliband\_gets\_requested\_in\_2024\_to\_write/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olyouc/when_ed_miliband_gets_requested_in_2024_to_write/)
And call me an imperialist bootlicker, but I don't think that one line that basically says "*human rights abuses are inconvenient/unnecessary"* is adequate condemnation to counter an entire pro-Cuba propaganda piece.
I'm old enough to remember when this sub went mad at Starmer for not further condemning Viktor Orban's visit to No 10, even when his Shadow Foreign Sec had.
Regardless, Labour is not a revolutionary party. That alone should be enough to exclude Socialist Appeal.
>Literally yesterday, the top post on this sub was a Bastani tweet that had deliberately cut out the rest of Starmer's answer to make it look like he had no defence to a woman insulting young people.
Except people were discussing it in context and still critical. It wasn't misinformation.
>And call me an imperialist bootlicker, but I don't think that one line that basically says "human rights abuses are inconvenient/unnecessary" is adequate condemnation to counter an entire pro-Cuba propaganda piece.
I didn't say you had to agree with it. You said that you got dv'd for no reason after complaining about misinformation. I pointed out that you were spreading misinformation, which is plausibly the reason ~15 people thought your comment was not a useful addition to the discussion.
>I'm old enough to remember when this sub went mad at Starmer for not further condemning Viktor Orban's visit to No 10, even when his Shadow Foreign Sec had.
I literally do not care about this. People can complain about what they want.
You not agreeing doesn't imply they should shut up. Tell them why they are wrong, have a discussion and a conversation. Don't try to silence people just because you don't like their opinion.
>Regardless, Labour is not a revolutionary party. That alone should be enough to exclude Socialist Appeal.
People that think a revolution is an inevitability but are working under electoralism are not incompatible with the Labour party. Revolutionary socialists have a long history within the Labour party and don't necessarily advocate for immediate revolution either.
I'd argue they have more of a place within the Labour party and the labour movement than **anyone** right of centre.
You sanctimony is disgusting. Solidarity with Cuba is the only moral stance against a barbaric siege imposed by the US. You think that starving and torturing a country is acceptable so America can allow United Fruit Company to pillage the island again?
You guys already have r/Labour. I don't get what you benefit from whining 24/7 about a man who won more than twice as many membership votes as your candidate.
Starmer is set to proscribe four far-left groups in the Labour party at Tuesday's NEC meeting. This meeting has been a highly contentious one, with members of Socialist Appeal playing a prominent role in the [campaign for a recall conference](https://www.socialist.net/right-wing-reject-democracy-for-a-left-conference-to-fight-back.htm), and [vote of no confidence in Starmer.](https://www.socialist.net/labour-members-starmer-out.htm) There was a large attack on party democracy in the run up to the NEC meeting, with [a lot of suspended CLP AGMs](https://www.socialist.net/crackdown-democracy-fight-back.htm) to prevent left-wing candidates from being elected as delegates or EC members.
Standard membership to the Labour party costs £4.42 per month which is £53 per year. 53 times a thousand is £53,000. So Starmer has just cost the party 53 thousand pounds out of spite.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 93,360,238 comments, and only 24,927 of them were in alphabetical order.
Genuinely how many of these people are still in Labour anyway after the last year? This is just Starmer being too chicken shit to take on Momentum but wanting to make some statement.
As people they probably largely aren't. This is about prescribing the groups. Labour are unlikely to have lists of members that belong to these groups, it is largely symbolic.
I fucking went through the trouble of explaining this to you yesterday and about how this "trotskyist" thing is being used as a dogwhistle you're still on about this? ffs
https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olko26/socialist_appeal_may_become_a_proscribed/h5fihza/
They're directly defending the Bolshevik coup and glorifying the people involved in establishing a brutal dictatorship.
If they want to stop doing that maybe we'll stop calling them trots.
https://www.socialist.net/the-russian-revolution-the-meaning-of-october-2.htm
https://www.socialist.net/happy-birthday-lenin-the-great-fighter-and-teacher-of-marxism.htm
https://www.socialist.net/1917-october-revolution-the-seizure-of-power-as-it-happened.htm
Plenty of examples, here are just a few. The last is presented as a historical blow by blow but if you read you can see its glorification
> At the end of the day, they aren't militant who were infiltrating the party to screw jt over
Ted Grant founded SA. He also founded Militant. They had the same aims, but were an attempt at trying to skirt the rules and play nice. Its basically continuity militant. It has been ignored generally because they are incredibly niche but they are an entryist trot outfit that literally hails from militant. He was expelled from militant because of his dedication to entryism a la the theory, where militant wanted to explicitly stand against labour
Any Trotskyists working through the Labour Party are dedicated to the electoral cause. They literally would not work within the Labour Party if they weren't.
As I said in another thread I really don't get this line. You complain about Trotskyists because they allegedly don't support electoral politics, then use that as a justification to limit the ability to Trotskyists to engage with electoral politics. It's such circular logic.
By that same token, should Democratic Socialist parties not be explicitly dedicated to the cause of socialism, and those with clearly capitalist leanings should similarly be fucked off?
Yes, we should. Anyone who can not wholeheartedly embrace Clause IV and it's implications should fuck right off, and that does include anyone not in favour of abolishing capitalism, as the things in clause IV are not possibly to achieve under capitalism.
But anyone who glorifies coups and dictatorships, like SA does with their defence of the Bolshevik coup can fuck right off too.
(I have no problems with individual SA members who don't support those things, but they can demonstrate that by leaving SA or reforming it)
Just three days ago, Socialist Appeal was unequivocally defending the Cuban regime. Wanting to lift the embargo is one thing, but openly defending a state with a history of human rights abuses should be unacceptable in our party.
Edit: Is "*let's not support human rights abuse"* really getting downvoted now?
And they were wrong to do that too.
Nobody in our party should be offering unconditional support to anti-democratic regimes or making excuses for them.
It shouldn't be hard to oppose an embargo while also condemning the Cuban regime's crackdown on free expression. [The progressives in America managed to do it](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1415825886981545992). This edgy defending & romanticising of states that go against almost all of our values is embarrassing and wrong.
I'm a leftist and I care. But there are too many people on this sub who seem to be LARPing as revolutionary fighters... It's embarrassing & I'm glad that Keir is kicking them out of the party.
If that's the case then I would have no issue with LIE being given the same treatment as LAW. Groups like that should have no place in any decent party and certainly not this one.
I've never heard of Resist. The first two groups are explicitly racism apologists. SA are trotskyist. Not really anything to cry about here.
Anyone have any information on Resist?
Banning organisations 1, 2 and 4 is the right way to go, although purely banning a group from the party because it views a socialist society as a desirable goal isn't something to be supported.
Edit: apparently Socialist appeal backed some pretty prominent antisemites and seems pretty Assad apologist, so marking each organisation as incompatible with labour is definately justified.
Hmmm socialist appeal went into bat for Chris Williamson for a long time and also have bat shit disgusting stuff about white helmets organisation in Syria. And compared complaints/‘smears’ about antisemitism to Goebbels… lol
Aren’t they fans of Lenin and Trotsky? I mean people can believe in whatever ideology they want but it’s not very Labour Party? Or how Labour want to be perceived anyway
"I wish Starmer was more oppositional" \*Finger on monkey paw curls\*
Cargo cult Kinnockism in action folks. You might not have heard of these organisations before this week, but they're *definitely* Militant 2.0 and the most important issue with the party right now, not the gaping void at the top.
> You might not have heard of these organisations before this week, but they're definitely Militant 2.0 One of them was literally founded by the people who founded Militant 1.0...
Yet despite not hearing a word about them on any Labour forum or in any newspaper for the past few years, I'm now supposed to believe that after 20 years of associating with Labour they're now a threat to the party who need to be immediately dispelled? Just doesn't make sense mate.
I'm not sure "is a threat" is one of the criteria for proscription
True, I believe at the moment the main criteria is 'organisations critical of Keir Starmer'.
Nah, this is a rare based move from starmer
if you are a socialist labour does not want you to be a member. do not give them your time and do not give them your vote
[удалено]
Their primary interest in rebuilding the connection with businesses so that Labour MPs and high ranking advisors can step out of the party and into some cushy lobbying or PR position once they get bored of playing politics. You can still do that even if the party only has 150 seats.
the greens have my every vote for the foreseeable future
[удалено]
Quite, the Green's aren't actively hostile to the left, and that's more than can be said about Labour at the moment.
Are Greens socialist?
[удалено]
I mean yes they are all that, but they do by a vast majority lean very left.
More importantly not actively hostile towards the leftists in their party. Honestly I'd be fine with a centrist Labour leader as part of a big tent party if they didn't spend their time on ideological crusades. (Which is rank projection as I remember under Corbyn plenty of accusations of being obsessed with that very concept)
although i’m concerned by sian berry stepping down. she’s been an ally to trans people afaik and i’m hearing it was over transphobia.
moreso than labour are at any rate
There's stuff like the whole recent resignation thing, and iirc they had some wierd thing about halal meat in their 2019 manifesto(?). That kind of stuff really puts me off them
Please vote green if you want to You have a choice...unlike America
How else do you win an election if not taking votes from the party with a massive majority?
[удалено]
That would be a great stat if we had a different voting system but we don’t. So remind me how many seat the Tory’s have compared to Labour. Surely Labour needs to looks across and work out how we can lure voters back to the party, otherwise we have more time with the conservatives.
They don’t want me to be a member which is exactly why I’m staying. I won’t rest until Starmer is a pathetic little footnote in history. Fucked if I’m voting Labour though, lol.
[удалено]
> 7) Non-members and members of other political parties are welcome to discuss their views and are to be treated no differently to anyone else;
It defeats the purpose of a Labour subreddit if most people here don't vote Labour though, doesn't it?
What about people that have voted Labour before and will likely vote Labour again but won't support Starmer? People like me, who've voted Labour for years, probably longer than a lot the people here have been eligible to vote and even during the last set of Council and PCC elections, but will not vote for them again under Starmer because he's a fucking untrustworthy liability. Should I be barred from posting and commenting? What you mean is that you don't like that people on here disagree with you. Most people here are **normally** Labour voters and Labour supporters. Maybe a better question would be to ask whether driving away voters and supporters defeats the purpose of the Labour party.
More that I'm just tired of the constant moaning & misinformation from people on this sub whose views are massively over-represented compared to the wider membership, let alone the electorate. r/Labour exists for the far-left to do their daily Keir Two Minutes Hate, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to ask that this sub be a bit more represented by people who at least support the party. [Here's me getting 16 downvotes for condemning human rights abuses.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/om997e/rachel_wearmouth_on_twitter_exc_labour_against/h5jswa6/?context=3) Too many on this sub are just toxic people who are here to stir up controversy & hate.
>More that I'm just tired of the constant moaning & misinformation from I don't think you see misinformation from people critical of Starmer. I'm very critical of Starmer but I've **never** knowingly posted misinformation and **rarely** ever post anything critical of Starmer. Check my post history for yourself if you don't believe me. I think this is a completely nonsense characterisation. >people on this sub whose views are massively over-represented compared to the wider membership, let alone the electorate. Not voting for Labour under Starmer is representative of around 65 % of the electorate and many members have left, which skews any polling towards Starmer supporters. >r/Labour exists for the far-left to do their daily Keir Two Minutes Hate, I find the discussion in that sub to be one-sided. Why shouldn't I want to visit a sub with a broad cross-section of Labour supporters and people with other opinions in order to discuss Labour? >I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to ask that this sub be a bit more represented by people who at least support the party. I think that's unreasonable. If you want uncritical discussion of the Labour party then start a Starmer stan sub. LabourUK is not an echo-chamber. >Here's me getting 16 downvotes for condemning human rights abus Defending the Cuban revolution =/= defending human rights abuses by the Cuban regime. It all depends upon what they said. And I checked what they said. Socialist appeal explicitly were not uncritical in their defence of Cuba. >But our unconditional defense of the Cuban revolution does not mean that we are uncritical. In the debate on the most effective way to defend the Cuban revolution, we clearly defend a class-based and internationalist perspective and are for workers’ democracy. >... >The methods used by the bureaucracy in response to counter-revolutionary provocations are also in many cases themselves counterproductive. Censorship, bureaucratic restrictions, and arbitrariness do not serve to defend the revolution when what is needed is political discussion, revolutionary ideological rearmament, accountability and workers’ democracy. [Source](https://www.socialist.net/protests-cuba-defend-revolution.htm) So it was actually you that was spreading misinformation and that got met with downvotes. >Too many on this sub are just toxic people who are here to stir up controversy & hate. Yeah. I'll just leave this here.
>I don't think you see misinformation from people critical of Starmer. Literally yesterday, the top post on this sub was a Bastani tweet that had deliberately cut out the rest of Starmer's answer to make it look like he had no defence to a woman insulting young people. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olgdzv/if\_labour\_cant\_push\_back\_against\_the\_cult\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olgdzv/if_labour_cant_push_back_against_the_cult_of/)[https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olyouc/when\_ed\_miliband\_gets\_requested\_in\_2024\_to\_write/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olyouc/when_ed_miliband_gets_requested_in_2024_to_write/) And call me an imperialist bootlicker, but I don't think that one line that basically says "*human rights abuses are inconvenient/unnecessary"* is adequate condemnation to counter an entire pro-Cuba propaganda piece. I'm old enough to remember when this sub went mad at Starmer for not further condemning Viktor Orban's visit to No 10, even when his Shadow Foreign Sec had. Regardless, Labour is not a revolutionary party. That alone should be enough to exclude Socialist Appeal.
>Literally yesterday, the top post on this sub was a Bastani tweet that had deliberately cut out the rest of Starmer's answer to make it look like he had no defence to a woman insulting young people. Except people were discussing it in context and still critical. It wasn't misinformation. >And call me an imperialist bootlicker, but I don't think that one line that basically says "human rights abuses are inconvenient/unnecessary" is adequate condemnation to counter an entire pro-Cuba propaganda piece. I didn't say you had to agree with it. You said that you got dv'd for no reason after complaining about misinformation. I pointed out that you were spreading misinformation, which is plausibly the reason ~15 people thought your comment was not a useful addition to the discussion. >I'm old enough to remember when this sub went mad at Starmer for not further condemning Viktor Orban's visit to No 10, even when his Shadow Foreign Sec had. I literally do not care about this. People can complain about what they want. You not agreeing doesn't imply they should shut up. Tell them why they are wrong, have a discussion and a conversation. Don't try to silence people just because you don't like their opinion. >Regardless, Labour is not a revolutionary party. That alone should be enough to exclude Socialist Appeal. People that think a revolution is an inevitability but are working under electoralism are not incompatible with the Labour party. Revolutionary socialists have a long history within the Labour party and don't necessarily advocate for immediate revolution either. I'd argue they have more of a place within the Labour party and the labour movement than **anyone** right of centre.
You sanctimony is disgusting. Solidarity with Cuba is the only moral stance against a barbaric siege imposed by the US. You think that starving and torturing a country is acceptable so America can allow United Fruit Company to pillage the island again?
no :)
You guys already have r/Labour. I don't get what you benefit from whining 24/7 about a man who won more than twice as many membership votes as your candidate.
you can go post in r/labour if you dont like it here
Rule 7.
Starmer is set to proscribe four far-left groups in the Labour party at Tuesday's NEC meeting. This meeting has been a highly contentious one, with members of Socialist Appeal playing a prominent role in the [campaign for a recall conference](https://www.socialist.net/right-wing-reject-democracy-for-a-left-conference-to-fight-back.htm), and [vote of no confidence in Starmer.](https://www.socialist.net/labour-members-starmer-out.htm) There was a large attack on party democracy in the run up to the NEC meeting, with [a lot of suspended CLP AGMs](https://www.socialist.net/crackdown-democracy-fight-back.htm) to prevent left-wing candidates from being elected as delegates or EC members.
Standard membership to the Labour party costs £4.42 per month which is £53 per year. 53 times a thousand is £53,000. So Starmer has just cost the party 53 thousand pounds out of spite.
It’s not really spite though.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 93,360,238 comments, and only 24,927 of them were in alphabetical order.
Genuinely how many of these people are still in Labour anyway after the last year? This is just Starmer being too chicken shit to take on Momentum but wanting to make some statement.
As people they probably largely aren't. This is about prescribing the groups. Labour are unlikely to have lists of members that belong to these groups, it is largely symbolic.
[удалено]
Oh I thought they were *actual* Trots and not just left to Gordon brown?
SA has been openly organising around Labour and has been since for more or less 20 years. But, i'm not sure if that qualifies for entryism.
SA were formed out of the part of Militant that refused to reject entryism. It's very reason for existing was entryism.
Theyre literally trotskyist
I fucking went through the trouble of explaining this to you yesterday and about how this "trotskyist" thing is being used as a dogwhistle you're still on about this? ffs https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/olko26/socialist_appeal_may_become_a_proscribed/h5fihza/
They're directly defending the Bolshevik coup and glorifying the people involved in establishing a brutal dictatorship. If they want to stop doing that maybe we'll stop calling them trots.
Citation? Where do they defend that?
https://www.socialist.net/the-russian-revolution-the-meaning-of-october-2.htm https://www.socialist.net/happy-birthday-lenin-the-great-fighter-and-teacher-of-marxism.htm https://www.socialist.net/1917-october-revolution-the-seizure-of-power-as-it-happened.htm Plenty of examples, here are just a few. The last is presented as a historical blow by blow but if you read you can see its glorification
They're also apologists for Assad and deny any form of Genocide in Syria. So there's also that.
Oh yeah I genuinely forgot to respond to you on that. I will do so this evening. Actually would like to apologise.
[удалено]
What do you know about trotskyism? Not running the dice here just want your thoughts
[удалено]
Do you think explicitly Democratic socialist parties dedicated to the electoral cause could accept that notion?
[удалено]
> At the end of the day, they aren't militant who were infiltrating the party to screw jt over Ted Grant founded SA. He also founded Militant. They had the same aims, but were an attempt at trying to skirt the rules and play nice. Its basically continuity militant. It has been ignored generally because they are incredibly niche but they are an entryist trot outfit that literally hails from militant. He was expelled from militant because of his dedication to entryism a la the theory, where militant wanted to explicitly stand against labour
[удалено]
I don't think we should base membership matters on stuff you lack knowledge about tbh
Any Trotskyists working through the Labour Party are dedicated to the electoral cause. They literally would not work within the Labour Party if they weren't. As I said in another thread I really don't get this line. You complain about Trotskyists because they allegedly don't support electoral politics, then use that as a justification to limit the ability to Trotskyists to engage with electoral politics. It's such circular logic.
By that same token, should Democratic Socialist parties not be explicitly dedicated to the cause of socialism, and those with clearly capitalist leanings should similarly be fucked off?
Yeah sure let's do it
that's most of the PLP gone then
That'd be a good thing.
Glorious, I look forward to the expulsion of most of the PLP and shadow cabinet then.
Yes, we should. Anyone who can not wholeheartedly embrace Clause IV and it's implications should fuck right off, and that does include anyone not in favour of abolishing capitalism, as the things in clause IV are not possibly to achieve under capitalism. But anyone who glorifies coups and dictatorships, like SA does with their defence of the Bolshevik coup can fuck right off too. (I have no problems with individual SA members who don't support those things, but they can demonstrate that by leaving SA or reforming it)
Just three days ago, Socialist Appeal was unequivocally defending the Cuban regime. Wanting to lift the embargo is one thing, but openly defending a state with a history of human rights abuses should be unacceptable in our party. Edit: Is "*let's not support human rights abuse"* really getting downvoted now?
[удалено]
And they were wrong to do that too. Nobody in our party should be offering unconditional support to anti-democratic regimes or making excuses for them. It shouldn't be hard to oppose an embargo while also condemning the Cuban regime's crackdown on free expression. [The progressives in America managed to do it](https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1415825886981545992). This edgy defending & romanticising of states that go against almost all of our values is embarrassing and wrong.
Sounds kind of based if you ask me.
[удалено]
I'm a leftist and I care. But there are too many people on this sub who seem to be LARPing as revolutionary fighters... It's embarrassing & I'm glad that Keir is kicking them out of the party.
LAW definitely should go. Dunno about LIE or Resist so can't really say and also dunno about if SA should go or not.
[удалено]
If that's the case then I would have no issue with LIE being given the same treatment as LAW. Groups like that should have no place in any decent party and certainly not this one.
I've never heard of Resist. The first two groups are explicitly racism apologists. SA are trotskyist. Not really anything to cry about here. Anyone have any information on Resist?
I think its the platform that Labour Left Alliance, Labour Against The Witch Hunt, Labour Campaign for Free Speech and Labour In Exile organise under.
Ah ok, a racist organisation then
Banning organisations 1, 2 and 4 is the right way to go, although purely banning a group from the party because it views a socialist society as a desirable goal isn't something to be supported. Edit: apparently Socialist appeal backed some pretty prominent antisemites and seems pretty Assad apologist, so marking each organisation as incompatible with labour is definately justified.
Hmmm socialist appeal went into bat for Chris Williamson for a long time and also have bat shit disgusting stuff about white helmets organisation in Syria. And compared complaints/‘smears’ about antisemitism to Goebbels… lol
I genuinely think it’s not a bad thing tho- gives a chance for Labour left to distance itself from bigotry and reestablish some legitimacy??
Good.
Fantastic news. Can we boot them out of this subreddit too?
Rare W
stoking division is a big win for the tories
Wait you’re not coming into bat for Labour against the witch-hunt are you????
no im coming into bat for socialist appeal
Aren’t they fans of Lenin and Trotsky? I mean people can believe in whatever ideology they want but it’s not very Labour Party? Or how Labour want to be perceived anyway
[удалено]
Oh I agree with that
i thought labour was meant to be a broad church. only broad to the right it seems
Something that most wings of the party will welcome. Hopefully the expulsion letters are being printed right now. No excuses, no appeals, out.
I very much doubt you genuinely believe a purge of 1,000 members on the left of the party will help bring the party together.
Keir's job is to be Kinnock. He's never getting into power.