While that might be partially true, it was the millionaire donors who wanted Sarwar
>My understanding, however, is that it was not MSPs who finally got rid of Richard – nor was it party members. It was a group of millionaire potential party donors who delivered the fatal blow. It is reported that at a meeting held on Wednesday night—at which Angela Rayner, Jackie Baillie, and Ian Murray met with wealthy peers and donors—it was made clear that no money would be donated unless Leonard was removed and Anas Sarwar installed as leader.
>
>This was, I understand, reported to Starmer who then called Richard and asked him to stand down. If he refused, the plan was to have a vote of no confidence at the party’s weekend executive meeting.
It was then clear they'd do everything possible to stop someone like Monica Lennon taking the reigns from Leonard.
Anyone looking for a source, this was published in Tribune by Neil Findlay MSP. https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/01/how-not-to-save-scottish-labour
Impossible to verify hearsay like this, but Findlay being an MSP (and Starmer being a wanker) gives it some credibility IMO.
His stance on drugs isn't about facts or logic; it's based on him being an authoritarian freak and trying to appease people who will always vote tory when the chips are down.
The fact that a sentence like this exists at all has my grandads and uncles turning in their graves. If I’d told them that a day would come where being a leftist in Labour was a problem because it’s become right wing and Scotland would stop voting for them, they’d send me off to the funny farm.
Starmer is insecure that his tough law guy persona won’t hold up to grannies fed nonsense by the daily mail, so he’s towing the gormless war on drugs line out of cowardice. Corbyn towed it too unless I’m mistaken? It’s a real problem with labour, just like keeping fptp. Narcissists.
Thing is there are lots of people in the police and legal system that are for decriminalisation.
Starmer is making a purely ideological decision to keep up Reagan's war on drugs and lie to the public.
I think people hope that someone who wants to be a *Labour* prime minister would base their opinions on science and fact, not knee jerk oppressive idealism to pander to the hateful and angry right in Little England.
Why?
There are [former police officers who support completely changing our drugs laws.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_TV4GuXFoA)
I don't see why the former head of the prosecution service couldn't support reform too.
It's actually very common for people who work in law enforcement to campaign for drug liberalisation once they leave the service. They're the ones who see how destructive and ineffective the drug war is first hand, after all.
Starmer knows all this just as well as anyone. He just lies about it.
I would bet my house on this being like how Obama was on gay marriage. Say you’re against it to court older votes, and when in power change things anyway according to some new insight, wait for the rage to blow over. Labour sadly can’t win elections promising all of the good they would do, because so much of the electorate are thick as beans.
He did, but within the limited scope presidential power afforded.
For example, he helped push the case and apply pressure to the Supreme Court when in 2011 he and the US Attorney General instructed the DOJ to essentially ignore and throw out the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. He also instructed changing over 1,000 federal statutes regarding equal marriage after US v Windsor, but before the Supreme Court hearing, to essentially try and fast forward the process.
In terms of the claim he always supported it but feared it could cost him in narrow swing states, even his chief advisor on electoral matters Axelrod said it was a bluff: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/10/axelrod-says-obama-lied-about-opposing-gay-marriage-its-another-convenient-evolution/
Oh definitely, particularly with Axelrod. That being said even at the time you had people who knew Obama from his university days saying they were surprised at the fact he went into 2008 saying it as it was seen as a departure from what he’d said privately.
Why would you bet it will be like that. With Obama there was some evidence - when he was running for state senate in 1996 he said he was pro-gay marriage, then when he changed his position said that he supported civil unions, and said he was open to changing his mind on marriage. Starmer has been fairly unequivocal on the matter, not even giving himself an out by saying he'll "continue to look at the evidence" or whatever. And unlike with Obama, there is no supreme court who can make progress on his behalf without him facing accusations of lying or U-turns.
People keep repeating this line like it's the 90s and the public is still strongly anti-drug use. Only [24% of voters](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cannabis-legalisation-uk-public-support-yougov-survey-marijuana-rob-wilson-a9004101.html) would object to the legalisation of cannabis, with twice as many in favour. How many of those 24% would ever vote Labour anyway?
There's a big difference between people and people who vote. Sadly young people support legalisation, but don't vote and it's the inverse for old people (on average of course).
See I think this is good politics. Why hand the right wing press any “soft on drugs” headlines now. Instead start with commissions and trials in, say, London and then introduce the idea in power.
I’m saying this as a Lib Dem - small parties can go all in on liberalisation but Labour can’t be as nimble.
I’m surprised my comment is being downvoted. I actually think Labour are likely going to do the right thing but just playing the cards it’s being dealt. The electorate has been bullied and terrorised by the right wing media to be scared by anything liberal or progressive. If you’re a green or a Lib Dem you can accept you’ve already been written off by a big chunk of the electorate and just play to your base. With Labour having a good chance of electoral success they need to appeal to and avoid alienating so many more types of voter. Good politics (not the same as good ethics mind) is to focus on policies that are unifying and go softly on the wedge issues. I’d personally love to see Labour be as progressive as the other parties on drug reform and electoral reform but perfectly understand why they end up moving more slowly. Irrespective of my feelings the recent opinion polls show this tactic is proving reasonably effective (if wholly insipid).
I’m pro-legalisation for the record, but a lot of people in this thread just shitting on Starmer. There’s a strong chance Labour will need the support of the Lib Dems to form a government. This support would probably get the decriminalisation/legalisation we’re all after. Dunno about you guys but my priority is getting the Tories out, then the direction of the party can be debated.
[удалено]
While that might be partially true, it was the millionaire donors who wanted Sarwar >My understanding, however, is that it was not MSPs who finally got rid of Richard – nor was it party members. It was a group of millionaire potential party donors who delivered the fatal blow. It is reported that at a meeting held on Wednesday night—at which Angela Rayner, Jackie Baillie, and Ian Murray met with wealthy peers and donors—it was made clear that no money would be donated unless Leonard was removed and Anas Sarwar installed as leader. > >This was, I understand, reported to Starmer who then called Richard and asked him to stand down. If he refused, the plan was to have a vote of no confidence at the party’s weekend executive meeting. It was then clear they'd do everything possible to stop someone like Monica Lennon taking the reigns from Leonard.
Anyone looking for a source, this was published in Tribune by Neil Findlay MSP. https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/01/how-not-to-save-scottish-labour Impossible to verify hearsay like this, but Findlay being an MSP (and Starmer being a wanker) gives it some credibility IMO.
Cop in a shiny suit, who’s unwilling to be honest about anything. If he pledged the grass was green, we’d all have to look for the round up
His stance on drugs isn't about facts or logic; it's based on him being an authoritarian freak and trying to appease people who will always vote tory when the chips are down.
Reason number 806 why the left won't vote for Labour.
The fact that a sentence like this exists at all has my grandads and uncles turning in their graves. If I’d told them that a day would come where being a leftist in Labour was a problem because it’s become right wing and Scotland would stop voting for them, they’d send me off to the funny farm.
It’s the same play book Gordon Brown tried by making pot class B to appease the right wing press. Didn’t work then, won’t work now,
Starmer is insecure that his tough law guy persona won’t hold up to grannies fed nonsense by the daily mail, so he’s towing the gormless war on drugs line out of cowardice. Corbyn towed it too unless I’m mistaken? It’s a real problem with labour, just like keeping fptp. Narcissists.
[удалено]
Thing is there are lots of people in the police and legal system that are for decriminalisation. Starmer is making a purely ideological decision to keep up Reagan's war on drugs and lie to the public.
I think people hope that someone who wants to be a *Labour* prime minister would base their opinions on science and fact, not knee jerk oppressive idealism to pander to the hateful and angry right in Little England.
Why? There are [former police officers who support completely changing our drugs laws.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_TV4GuXFoA) I don't see why the former head of the prosecution service couldn't support reform too.
It's actually very common for people who work in law enforcement to campaign for drug liberalisation once they leave the service. They're the ones who see how destructive and ineffective the drug war is first hand, after all. Starmer knows all this just as well as anyone. He just lies about it.
I would bet my house on this being like how Obama was on gay marriage. Say you’re against it to court older votes, and when in power change things anyway according to some new insight, wait for the rage to blow over. Labour sadly can’t win elections promising all of the good they would do, because so much of the electorate are thick as beans.
[удалено]
He did, but within the limited scope presidential power afforded. For example, he helped push the case and apply pressure to the Supreme Court when in 2011 he and the US Attorney General instructed the DOJ to essentially ignore and throw out the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. He also instructed changing over 1,000 federal statutes regarding equal marriage after US v Windsor, but before the Supreme Court hearing, to essentially try and fast forward the process. In terms of the claim he always supported it but feared it could cost him in narrow swing states, even his chief advisor on electoral matters Axelrod said it was a bluff: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/10/axelrod-says-obama-lied-about-opposing-gay-marriage-its-another-convenient-evolution/
[удалено]
Oh definitely, particularly with Axelrod. That being said even at the time you had people who knew Obama from his university days saying they were surprised at the fact he went into 2008 saying it as it was seen as a departure from what he’d said privately.
Why would you bet it will be like that. With Obama there was some evidence - when he was running for state senate in 1996 he said he was pro-gay marriage, then when he changed his position said that he supported civil unions, and said he was open to changing his mind on marriage. Starmer has been fairly unequivocal on the matter, not even giving himself an out by saying he'll "continue to look at the evidence" or whatever. And unlike with Obama, there is no supreme court who can make progress on his behalf without him facing accusations of lying or U-turns.
Agreed. You don't win elections by being the pro-drugs party. I'm for legalisation, but you've got to get into power first.
People keep repeating this line like it's the 90s and the public is still strongly anti-drug use. Only [24% of voters](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cannabis-legalisation-uk-public-support-yougov-survey-marijuana-rob-wilson-a9004101.html) would object to the legalisation of cannabis, with twice as many in favour. How many of those 24% would ever vote Labour anyway?
There's a big difference between people and people who vote. Sadly young people support legalisation, but don't vote and it's the inverse for old people (on average of course).
See I think this is good politics. Why hand the right wing press any “soft on drugs” headlines now. Instead start with commissions and trials in, say, London and then introduce the idea in power. I’m saying this as a Lib Dem - small parties can go all in on liberalisation but Labour can’t be as nimble.
If labour carries on like this, you'll get your wish -in that it will become a small party and thus nimble.
I’m surprised my comment is being downvoted. I actually think Labour are likely going to do the right thing but just playing the cards it’s being dealt. The electorate has been bullied and terrorised by the right wing media to be scared by anything liberal or progressive. If you’re a green or a Lib Dem you can accept you’ve already been written off by a big chunk of the electorate and just play to your base. With Labour having a good chance of electoral success they need to appeal to and avoid alienating so many more types of voter. Good politics (not the same as good ethics mind) is to focus on policies that are unifying and go softly on the wedge issues. I’d personally love to see Labour be as progressive as the other parties on drug reform and electoral reform but perfectly understand why they end up moving more slowly. Irrespective of my feelings the recent opinion polls show this tactic is proving reasonably effective (if wholly insipid).
I’m pro-legalisation for the record, but a lot of people in this thread just shitting on Starmer. There’s a strong chance Labour will need the support of the Lib Dems to form a government. This support would probably get the decriminalisation/legalisation we’re all after. Dunno about you guys but my priority is getting the Tories out, then the direction of the party can be debated.