The post you are reporting:
Naive Keith, but then all closed mind socialists ar ethe same I suppose.
Trying to change a party from within will almost necessarily mean going against the sitting candidate, particularly one who has been sitting on their hands for 13 years or so. Nothing wrong in that. It is good adult behaviour to analyse. criticise (if necessary) and take action. Better that than become a "Yes" man, but then that is all the Labour party wants, "Yes" men.
Ken claiming to be a true socialist is not a problem either as far as I can see. It's just that his view of what true socialism is, is different to that of others. Again, better to hold your own opinion strongly than be a "yes" man.
Perhaps Ken saw the Tories (who weren't in power when Ken switched by the way", as representing more closely the views of socialism he held. To change party's is not an issue if your beliefs remain the same. Your party welcomes any old dross when it decides to switch to the red camp, so it is highly hypocritical to have a go on this score.
There is also nothing wrong in being a militant socialist from the Leninist, Trotskyist wing of the Labour Party if that is where one feels a comfortable fit for one's political beliefs. I happen to think trying to bastardise a revolutions aftermath policies (basic extermination of a class structure and subjugation of the masses) to fit a country where those practices will never be successful is foolhardy in the extreme, and those who would prefer us to be that way would be better off moving to socialist Russia. But of course they will never do that because even they can see how the socialist dream had failed bigtime there. I wouldn't be surprised if more socialist pepole have been exterminated in that place than the Germans killed Jews etc. It would be interesting to see the genuine stats.
Still, as you say Keith, and I agree, everyone is entitled to their own view.
