-
Because starmer doesn't want internal conflicts while in power like the last few years of Tory mayhem
Grumpy_Git-
Same approach as Johnson, worked well for him
Edit: although to be fair he filled the party with headbangers rather than those of his personal political persuasion
-
The think with the Tories is they had all that. Inflict because of the fact the last 2 leaders were so weak. If Johnson wasn't such a fuck up personally he would have remained in control surely, such was his popularity. So I suppose the fact Starmer seems to want to purge suggests he knows that, probably due to his personal unpopularity, he is a weak leader leading a party that despite the fact it is miles ahead in the poles is actually in a relatively fragile position. They are only really ahead due to the ineptitude of the Tories and the fact that after 14 years EVERYone is sick of them, even natural Tory voters. It's hardly a recipe for success. I'm not fan of Blair, but at least when he first won in 97 there was a sense of positivity and hope, at least until the Iraq shit show. I see and personally feel non of that now, not with anyone really and not even personally as a Labour member. Faiza would have been my MP, I was all ready to start canvassing for her this week and I was excited about her being MP. I feel non of that now, I'm just fucked off with Starmer and the party now and feel no enthusiasm at all., especially after a having a pro Starmer candidate from outside the area dropped on us. I can't see any local members campaigning for Labour at all now. You can't afford to fuck of your membership indefinitely, surely? After all, Starmer owes his position to them. I'm just fucked off really
slippers
jeff80
In which case why bother? There's only a rump of left wingers left in the parliamentary party anyway; even if they vote against Starmer occasionally they can't do much damage if they get any sort of majority at all.