Talk:Labour Party

There's more than the one 'Labour Party' in the world, you know. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

But only one that matters! ^{— Unsigned, by: Mikalos209 / talk / contribs}

What, the aussie one? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's referred to as the Australian Labour Party, or ALP. ^sshole 14:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is how many of these are going to get reasonable RW articles at any point? ^{d hominem} 14:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Easy to answer: none. RationalWiki is too like H2G2 for anyone to care. Blah blah blah snark. Blah blah blah snark. But the RW snarks are ignorant of the fact that no one cares. Which is awesome, because it shows RationalWiki is a good place for n00b-snarks to start before getting into the guts of the "real" internet and then realising how irrelevant and unimportant their opinions (same goes for the obvious opposites, i.e. racist xenophobic gay-hating anti-Jews, that lot). ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.152.184.129 / talk / contribs} 22:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can comment on the British Labour Party though: they do not care about you. They are in cahoots with the bankers, much like every other party and government on this planet. This is not a conspiracy, for it is plain to see. When Gordon Brown said "no-one saw it coming", he was lying. I myself saw it coming about 2 years ahead only by reading liberally and keeping my eyes open. When Gordon Brown said "no more boom and bust" it was a false promise to get votes after the goddamned Tory (aka Nasty Party) had spent nigh-on 20 years fixing the mess the last mess the 1970s Labour Party left behind. When Gordon Brown sold off half the UK gold when it was rock-bottom in price do readers think he was thinking about gold either as (a) a preserve of wealth against fiat currency or (b) whether it would boom on an exponential scale over the next decade? Hmmmm.... Obviously he thought "it is different this time"! ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.152.184.129 / talk / contribs} 22:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Labour Party speaks

• Anti-Semitism is rife
• Windrush generation - no statement
• Workers in the gig economy - nothing.
• Problems with Universal Credit - nothing.
• Marx' tomb damaged - nothing.
• FGM - nothing.

What is the Labour Party for? 109.145.101.205 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Writing a newer, unstubbed version

Currently writing a new version of the page that will go live after the Leadership election is over, (and after I get support from other RW members) written under the fairly justified assumption Starmer will win the leadership. I might move some stuff over from there beforehand though. Minish (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The 'women issue'

The Labour Party has all women shortlists; two out of three leadership candidates being women and the chap wins.

The Conservatives, Lib-Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru and DUP have/have had women leaders.

Any further comment necessary? Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I dislike the Labour party for that reason (among others) but what're the alternatives? Don't say LibDem after the disgusting way they behaved with the Tories. Scream!! (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

as stated, its the party with all women short lists. its also the party that has consistently had the highest proportion of female MPs at in parliament, currently 51% (lib dem has 64% but only 11 MPs, and labour have been beaten them hands down in previous parliaments). labour did not go for a female candidate this time. without knowing labour has not had a female leader, and looking at the composition in the house, and that both female candidates both gained their seats by all women short lists, is not clear to me why gender would be significant. its clear many feel it is significant. calls for starmer to stand aside for a female candidate is significant. its not clear what would have been gained by this beyond a 'bench mark'. its not clear where the systemic bias lies, where misogyny may be, what advantages being male provides a candidate. I struggle to see. the nomination process allowed for many female candidates before being whittled down to the final three. I thought perhaps the trade unions might have some impact, but all three candidates had trade union support, and women account for more of tu membership than men. the final vote was one vote per member about as fair as its ever been.

it is also significant that of the three candidates, only one had made any kind of impact in the 3 years of stasis that led up to the general election and has a record as a lawyer in dozens of landmark labour and human rights battles (prosecuted the murderers of Stephen Lawrence no less, and mclibel), vs one was labelled as a continuation of Corbyn (who was at the helm for labours biggest disaster since the war?), and vs the third, who the most I can say about them is that they were also there. nothing exciting about any of them for sure. but name recognition, a solid background, and just making themselves heard during those dreadful 3 years - a clear favourite, the obvious choice.

ive no doubt the optics of the first woman labour leader would be great. justify it as more than just that though. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Origins

Strictly speaking, the Labour Party was a federation of organisations (The Independent Labour Party, The Fabian Society, Trades Unions) from 1900 to 1918. You could not join in directly until 1918 which was also the first time it stood on a recognisable socialist platform. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

social democratic

its not been that for a while AMassiveGay (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)