-
they didn’t have control of the party, and as far as I’m concerned they are irrelevant.
Doesn’t this line of logic just allow you to always ignore anything anyone but Starmer does, though?
Which TBF is consistent with your posts on this topic
andyfallsoff-
The level of support for the Canary is very minimal and consequently it's not right to argue that they hold significant influence over anything the party does, nor to take them as representative of the left more widely.
If it was Momentum coming out in support of Chris Williamson then fair enough, but I think @ReekBlefs needs to get over their obsession with these marginal outfits. Go to your local CLP and i can guarantee members who define themselves as being on the left will be (albeit potentially reluctantly) putting in groundwork 'to get Labour elected'
-
Fairly obviously not, no. There are various areas of power within the party: whether the shadow cabinet; the PLP; the NEC; so on and so forth. The leader is not a dictator.
Do the canary control any of these various areas of power? Again, fairly obviously not.
Apologies for posting about Starmer in the…[checks topic]…Starmer thread.
bens0n
Eejit
Lol this is so weak.
Criticising Starmer for trying to out-authoritarian the Tories isn’t “factional nonsense”. I want Labour to be providing opposition on this, not nodding along and saying “yes, but can we made it more crackdown-y?”. It says bad things about what Starmer’s tendencies would be should he get into power.
Conversely, yes, the PLP moving to permanently exclude Corbyn is factional nonsense. That was kind of my point: it’s the PLP engaging in factional nonsense at a time when you think they would have better things to do, like provide some opposition to this government and their shocking handling of just about everything.
I don’t even know who or what Lowkey is, and I’ve never read the canary so idgaf about those people. Last time I checked they didn’t have control of the party, and as far as I’m concerned they are irrelevant.