Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: albie on September 23, 2022, 08:24:01 pm
-
For those who missed it live, the Aljazeera investigation into UK Labour;
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/23/unprecedented-leak-exposes-inner-workings-of-uk-labour-party
This is part 1.
Part 2 and 3 on Sat and Monday.
-
very quiet on this post
-
It is hard to defend the indefensible.
-
The silence on the opposition benches is deafening .
Vote Labour
:woot: :woot: :woot:
-
Doesn’t come across well but given there’s only a realistic choice of Tory or Labour, I still hope Labour win the next election.
-
Is this really such a shock to anyone. Even for the ‘I only vote Labour die hards.’
Would anyone with any type of real world concept only expect the Tories to have issues. It’s amazing how all the crucify everything Tory mob appear quiet which would suggest some level of hypocrisy
If some of the behaviours referred to in the link are deemed inappropriate for the tories bringing scathing dislike from people. Why aren’t the same people making similar comments about the Labour Party.
-
Hmm. Thought-provoking stuff and some murky goings on for sure.
But I'm also puzzled as to why a Qatari state-funded mouthpiece would go to such lengths to put together what is essentially a pro-Corbyn piece.
-
Because Qatar is opposed to Israeli influence on geopolitical affairs, BigH.
Nothing to the point, though really....the only question is if it is true, can it be proven....and why are the UK media not covering this story?
-
Still no comment from the Labour lovers on here?
-
There won’t be if it’s true ? Then how can it be defended whichever party it is
-
Non-political response from me, but if something is so relevant to the UK then why are the UK media not covering it, even the Tory papers? Might get taken more seriously by all sides if it was.
-
This!
The thought that the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph etc would be part of some conspiracy of silence if this were a truly big problem for Labour...
But there you go.
Folk on the Right want to deflect attention from this shit show Government.
Folk on the Left would rather us have this shit show Government than a Starmer led Labour Government.
Some features of politics are never changing.
-
Shame the last two responses came in, I was enjoying the Tory voters spitting feathers because there was no reply from Labour voters lol!
-
I don’t consider the responses are responses about the subject. They are just anger from people unable to defend the indefensible. Having no excuses for the Labour Party behaving as badly if not worse than the Tories.
-
As long as politics is adversarial and more interested in slagging the other side than been constructive then this country will never thrive
-
Reply number 11 tells us why Labour will struggle to win a GE. There is too big a divide in the Party for them to gather enough support for Starmer.
-
As long as politics is adversarial and more interested in slagging the other side than been constructive then this country will never thrive
Dead right, Ldr. However, it has to be said that our FPTP system causes a lot of this. A PR system would create a much more consensus based government.
-
Steve at least every vote would count and everyone may feel the need to vote. There will be some supporters of minority parties who may well not vote as it’s just a waste of time.
Ldr you’ve hit the mail on the head. Far too interested in disagreeing and slagging than talking about real issues
They’re all at it but for me one of the worst culprits is Starmer. I’m sure he goes home looks in the mirror and disagrees with himself.
-
Phil
I'm more than happy to talk policies. The reason I'm strongly anti-Tory is that they have regularly had disastrous economic policies for the whole of my life. They are responsible for 6 classic macroeconomic disasters in the past 50 years.
The Barber Boom
The Thatcher/Howe monetarist experiment.
The Lawson Boom.
The Cameron/Osborne Austerity
Brexit
This latest Kwarteng/Truss car crash.
I'm happy to debate any one of those in detail at your convenience.
I'm also more than happy to discuss the one period in the past 50 years when the Tory party got the macroeconomics bang on right - Ken Clarke's response to Black Wednesday. Because I don't dislike the Tories because they are Tories. I dislike them when they are so badly wrong on the big issues.
Back to Labour. Listen to Rachel Reeves set out an economic alternative this week to Truss/Kwarteng's kleptocratic pocket stuffing of the rich.
Then let's discuss it.
-
Shame the last two responses came in, I was enjoying the Tory voters spitting feathers because there was no reply from Labour voters lol!
Maybe you missed the bit where I said my response was non-political.?
And who says I voted Labour last time.?
-
But you’re not happy to condemn the Labour Party for the behaviour highlighted in this thread
I’m not defending the Tories I’m just saying too many people are quick to condemn one side but won’t condemn the other for similar behaviour. What’s good for the goose. This isn’t about policies it’s about attitude and behaviour.
-
I don’t consider the responses are responses about the subject. They are just anger from people unable to defend the indefensible. Having no excuses for the Labour Party behaving as badly if not worse than the Tories.
Show me the anger in my post.?
My viewpoint was simply questioning why this isn’t all over UK media if it’s such a big story about a UK political party..
Oh, and I’m not trying to defend anything - I will wait until it’s in the UK papers or news websites like BBC or Sky.
-
But you’re not happy to condemn the Labour Party for the behaviour highlighted in this thread
I’m not defending the Tories I’m just saying too many people are quick to condemn one side but won’t condemn the other for similar behaviour. What’s good for the goose. This isn’t about policies it’s about attitude and behaviour.
What behaviour.? There’s just a link to an Arab- based media site. Perhaps I’ve not made myself clear - I would comment on the reported behaviour once it is reported on credible UK media.
I’m not hiding from condemning anything. How dare you presume to know what’s in my head when I haven’t even commented?
-
Credible UK media? BBC and Sky News? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
You’d favour al-jazeera over those?
Shame there are too few credible posters on here.!
-
I dunno who i favour. I'm still stuck in a barrel of tits. Not had much chance to watch any news of late.
-
I haven’t even commented?
My point precisely
I don’t care what yours or anyone else’s politics are. This isn’t personal.
I just think there should be consistency
-
Credible UK media? BBC and Sky News? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I have to disagree with you there, Panda. IMO Sky News is superb, and completely unbiased.
Whenever major events are unfolding, like Soham, the hunt for Raoul Moat, and the Chilean mining rescue, Sky News are there 24/7, until the whole thing is over.
Excellent, quality journalism.
-
People who didn't comment about the current Chancellor of the Exchequer laughing in Westminster Abbey whilst waiting for the Queen's funeral have plenty to say on the Labour Party (in a programme they haven't watched and in support of people they called anti-semitic at the time) shock.
So, after watching this programme can we all confirm there was no anti-semitism under Corbyn and it was all MSM smears to remove him?
-
I haven’t even commented?
My point precisely
I don’t care what yours or anyone else’s politics are. This isn’t personal.
I just think there should be consistency
And you are completely missing my point - that I can’t comment or prefer not to, until I’ve seen this on media most would trust, even if we don’t always agree with their narrative.
You are judging me because I haven’t commented, but I’ve explained why I haven’t.
-
I haven’t even commented?
My point precisely
I don’t care what yours or anyone else’s politics are. This isn’t personal.
I just think there should be consistency
Or whether they are saddos or anti-establishment?
-
Episode 2 on the anti-semitism allegations which dominated the media pre 2019;
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/25/what-really-happened-during-labours-anti-semitism-crisis
-
Anyone got a link to this story being covered anywhere else.?
-
More racism in the Labour Party?
THE PRESS ASSOCIATION (Sam Blewett, PA Deputy Political Editor)
27 September 2022, 13:45 BST
In this article
3956452Z
LABOUR PARTY/THE
Private Company
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls to suspend MP Rupa Huq after she described Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as "superficially" black.
In audio published online, Ms Huq can be heard discussing his elite school background, before adding that "you wouldn't know he is black" when listening to him on the radio.
-
Reply number 11 tells us why Labour will struggle to win a GE. There is too big a divide in the Party for them to gather enough support for Starmer.
Wow, “ too bigger divide within the labour party”.
Not like this tory shambles eh?
-
Reply number 11 tells us why Labour will struggle to win a GE. There is too big a divide in the Party for them to gather enough support for Starmer.
Wow, “ too bigger divide within the labour party”.
Not like this tory shambles eh?
I agree mate that the Tory’s are in a mess.
It doesn’t mean that Labour aren’t though does it.
If they don’t win the next GE I reckon they never will.
-
Reply number 11 tells us why Labour will struggle to win a GE. There is too big a divide in the Party for them to gather enough support for Starmer.
Wow, “ too bigger divide within the labour party”.
Not like this tory shambles eh?
I think Hound here is making the same mistake as the Corbynistas. Thinking their attitude is more influential than it is.
-
Im not saying Labour are perfect by any means, but surely someone else has to be given a chance. What this Truss & her pals have done over the past week or so is basically stick 2 fingers up at most of the working class, whilst at the same time greasing the palms of those who dont need help & werent expecting it. Gary Neville was spot on with his comments today.
The problem labour will have is IF they do get elected in 2 years time they’re going to inherit such a mess that its going to take years before any of their policies come through.
They’l get my vote purely because i dont think they could do any worse and i think a lot of “floating voters” will feel the same. But if they got in & behaved like this lot have done theyd never get my vote again.
-
More racism in the Labour Party?
THE PRESS ASSOCIATION (Sam Blewett, PA Deputy Political Editor)
27 September 2022, 13:45 BST
In this article
3956452Z
LABOUR PARTY/THE
Private Company
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls to suspend MP Rupa Huq after she described Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as "superficially" black.
In audio published online, Ms Huq can be heard discussing his elite school background, before adding that "you wouldn't know he is black" when listening to him on the radio.
She had been suspended, put under and investigation and offered a written apology for at least 2 hours before you posted that.
Suprised you think that stupidity is more important to comment on than Kwarteng, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and second highest ranking person in govenment, laughing in Westminster Abbey whilst waiting for the Queen's funeral tho?
Funny old world.
-
More racism in the Labour Party?
THE PRESS ASSOCIATION (Sam Blewett, PA Deputy Political Editor)
27 September 2022, 13:45 BST
In this article
3956452Z
LABOUR PARTY/THE
Private Company
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls to suspend MP Rupa Huq after she described Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as "superficially" black.
In audio published online, Ms Huq can be heard discussing his elite school background, before adding that "you wouldn't know he is black" when listening to him on the radio.
She had been suspended, put under and investigation and offered a written apology for at least 2 hours before you posted that.
Suprised you think that stupidity is more important to comment on than Kwarteng, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and second highest ranking person in govenment, laughing in Westminster Abbey whilst waiting for the Queen's funeral tho?
Funny old world.
It is indeed wilts.
For starters, I spend much less time in here these days than I used to.
It is the same old same old most days.
However, to respond to you, I didn’t know she had apologised before I posted and didn’t know about Kk laughing in church so perhaps that is why I hadn’t mentioned it.
Wasn’t KK laughing just stupidly as well.
Don’t you think it is odd though that no one else (or is it noone !) had mentioned Ms Huqs blot on the copybook.
-
Reply number 11 tells us why Labour will struggle to win a GE. There is too big a divide in the Party for them to gather enough support for Starmer.
Wow, “ too bigger divide within the labour party”.
Not like this tory shambles eh?
I think Hound here is making the same mistake as the Corbynistas. Thinking their attitude is more influential than it is.
BST, plenty of people DO think that their attitude is quite influential.
-
Until I came on the forum tonight I hadn’t heard anything about the Rupa Huq remark. I feel it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s got away so lightly. If she’d been a white MP all hell would have broken out
The comments are disgraceful. She’s basically inferring to him as an “uncle tom” figure. What a disgrace. And the Labour Party complain about the attitude of the Tories. ???
KK is a well educated man who had the good fortune to have an Eton education. Aren’t minority groups asking to see people of the ethnic communities in position of power. Forget which party he represents he’s surely what all the equality groups are asking to see.
-
Huq's comments are stupid and insulting.
She's had the whip removed pending an investigation. She's apologised although that's scarcely enough.
Compare and contrast with the comments of the last PM (pickaninnies with watermelon smiles, letterboxes, tank top wearing bumboys) and the total lack of an apology or any action.
-
Over to you phil ................
-
Although I can help you out a bit here phil .......
''Jake Berry, the chair of the Conservative party, wrote to the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, saying he had “serious concerns” about the remarks. He called for Huq to lose the Labour whip, and added: “I trust you will join me in unequivocally condemning these comments as nothing less than racist.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/27/rupa-huq-has-labour-whip-suspended-after-kwarteng-comments
This is the same Jake Berry that gave his full support to johnson in his leadership bid?
No double standards here then aye?
And your comment below:
''Aren’t minority groups asking to see people of the ethnic communities in position of power. Forget which party he represents he’s surely what all the equality groups are asking to see
what everyone should want to see ............. fixed that for you phil
-
Syd there isn’t an over to me on this
BST typical reply I expected. Instead of addressing the issue and just accepting that some members of the Labour Party have the same type of mentality as other politicians you perversely try to defend it by pointing out the faults of others. This is precisely what is wrong with politics in this country. Unable to climb off the political merry go round. Unable to criticise without throwing mud My comments about her behaviour are not political they are comments about her behaviour. They would be the same if they’d been by a Tory or a green or a Lib Dem or any other party
Syd I’ll go along a little with your highlighted sentence with a caveat. “ what everyone should want to see “ Not as tokenism. It should always be best candidate no matter the race, religion, gender etc
-
Phil.
Read what I wrote again. Then get back to me on how you conclude that I'm trying to defend what she said.
What I'm saying is
a) it was wrong. Categorically.
b) it is being dealt with.
I really don't get what point you are trying to make here.
By the way, you say your comments would have been the same regardless of which party the politician who said them came from. Odd, that, because I don't recall you previously expressing disgust at the numerous cases of casually racist, sexist and homophobic language from Tory politicians, including the previous PM.
-
Syd there isn’t an over to me on this
BST typical reply I expected. Instead of addressing the issue and just accepting that some members of the Labour Party have the same type of mentality as other politicians you perversely try to defend it by pointing out the faults of others. This is precisely what is wrong with politics in this country. Unable to climb off the political merry go round. Unable to criticise without throwing mud My comments about her behaviour are not political they are comments about her behaviour. They would be the same if they’d been by a Tory or a green or a Lib Dem or any other party
Syd I’ll go along a little with your highlighted sentence with a caveat. “ what everyone should want to see “ Not as tokenism. It should always be best candidate no matter the race, religion, gender etc
why bother if you know everything already phil?
I have pointed out the failure of jake berry, chair of the tory party whom has just done what you said in your reply phil, he has ignored the racism of johnson but has a pop at starmer who has removed the whip of rupa huq, see the difference there phil?
If your answer to that question is no, then you're a fan of the right party.
By the way have you watched the 'files' at all?
So one whom has made many racist remarks and has disparaged almost every section of british society except the bullingdon club membership gets to be PM and rupa huq gets the whip withdrawn and you suggest it's all the same phil?
Can you show me where you have taken johnson to task over his many racist remarks phil or are you a bit dizzy from the marry go round?
-
Phil your trying to throw seeds on stony ground mate, you will fall into to trap of you to me clap trap with the winner being the one who posts last with Syd and any of the disciples.
-
Phil your trying to throw seeds on stony ground mate, you will fall into to trap of you to me clap trap with the winner being the one who posts last with Syd and any of the disciples.
try to keep it civil and nice selby as requested
-
C'mon Selby it's not unusual for you to try to get "the last say" :-]]
-
Part 3 on racism in Labour under Starmer;
https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/
The hierarchy of racism was set out in the Forde Report.
-
Until I came on the forum tonight I hadn’t heard anything about the Rupa Huq remark. I feel it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s got away so lightly. If she’d been a white MP all hell would have broken out
The comments are disgraceful. She’s basically inferring to him as an “uncle tom” figure. What a disgrace. And the Labour Party complain about the attitude of the Tories. ???
KK is a well educated man who had the good fortune to have an Eton education. Aren’t minority groups asking to see people of the ethnic communities in position of power. Forget which party he represents he’s surely what all the equality groups are asking to see.
'Got away so lightly'! She has been suspended by the Labour Party and had the Labour Whip taken away! Unlike Paterson, Liddington, Pincer, the mystery 'rapist'.
When a Labour politican breaks the rules they are subject to the rules. When a Tory politican breaks the rules - they try and change the rules
-
Phil
I'm more than happy to talk policies. The reason I'm strongly anti-Tory is that they have regularly had disastrous economic policies for the whole of my life. They are responsible for 6 classic macroeconomic disasters in the past 50 years.
The Barber Boom
The Thatcher/Howe monetarist experiment.
The Lawson Boom.
The Cameron/Osborne Austerity
Brexit
This latest Kwarteng/Truss car crash.
I'm happy to debate any one of those in detail at your convenience.
I'm also more than happy to discuss the one period in the past 50 years when the Tory party got the macroeconomics bang on right - Ken Clarke's response to Black Wednesday. Because I don't dislike the Tories because they are Tories. I dislike them when they are so badly wrong on the big issues.
Back to Labour. Listen to Rachel Reeves set out an economic alternative this week to Truss/Kwarteng's kleptocratic pocket stuffing of the rich.
Then let's discuss it.
That list of where they got it wrong, is actually a list of where they got it right. The results of all those policies were intended to make more money for the wealthy, and they did. Most of the wealthy always benefit from economic disasters. The problem is the less wealthy mugs who buy the propaganda around those policies. And then there's the poor mugs who also buy it :facepalm:
-
Until I came on the forum tonight I hadn’t heard anything about the Rupa Huq remark. I feel it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s got away so lightly. If she’d been a white MP all hell would have broken out
The comments are disgraceful. She’s basically inferring to him as an “uncle tom” figure. What a disgrace. And the Labour Party complain about the attitude of the Tories. ???
KK is a well educated man who had the good fortune to have an Eton education. Aren’t minority groups asking to see people of the ethnic communities in position of power. Forget which party he represents he’s surely what all the equality groups are asking to see.
'Got away so lightly'! She has been suspended by the Labour Party and had the Labour Whip taken away! Unlike Paterson, Liddington, Pincer, the mystery 'rapist'.
When a Labour politican breaks the rules they are subject to the rules. When a Tory politican breaks the rules - they try and change the rules
Wilts, did Labour take any action against the front bench Labour MP a few weeks ago, you know, the one who made lewd suggestions to the female MP who sat next to him.
It all went a bit quiet on that.
-
Until I came on the forum tonight I hadn’t heard anything about the Rupa Huq remark. I feel it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s got away so lightly. If she’d been a white MP all hell would have broken out
The comments are disgraceful. She’s basically inferring to him as an “uncle tom” figure. What a disgrace. And the Labour Party complain about the attitude of the Tories. ???
KK is a well educated man who had the good fortune to have an Eton education. Aren’t minority groups asking to see people of the ethnic communities in position of power. Forget which party he represents he’s surely what all the equality groups are asking to see.
'Got away so lightly'! She has been suspended by the Labour Party and had the Labour Whip taken away! Unlike Paterson, Liddington, Pincer, the mystery 'rapist'.
When a Labour politican breaks the rules they are subject to the rules. When a Tory politican breaks the rules - they try and change the rules
Wilts, did Labour take any action against the front bench Labour MP a few weeks ago, you know, the one who made lewd suggestions to the female MP who sat next to him.
It all went a bit quiet on that.
No idea.Why dont you do some research and tell us. Find out what is happening with the (alleged) Tory rapist at the same time.
-
Syd /BST this isn’t about which party anyone supports. This is about disgraceful behaviour of a member of parliament
It’s not party political in any way which you and others automatically make everything. I probably haven’t decried Johnson and others for comments you’re right.
Let’s just stick to the point about this. She is a disgrace and her comments are abhorrent. Forget others and their behaviour. This is about her and nothing to do with party politics.
-
Syd /BST this isn’t about which party anyone supports. This is about disgraceful behaviour of a member of parliament
It’s not party political in any way which you and others automatically make everything. I probably haven’t decried Johnson and others for comments you’re right.
Let’s just stick to the point about this. She is a disgrace and her comments are abhorrent. Forget others and their behaviour. This is about her and nothing to do with party politics.
I get it phil, it's nothing to do with politics you just happen to take an interest in labour, this tells me you couldn't find where you've criticised johnson or others.
-
Wilts I’ll save hound the trouble of looking. I think you’ll find that the whip has not been removed from the Tory MP accused of rape to not highlight who he is. After all at this time he is only The Accused. He has not been charged. We should all know how mud sticks and this allegation could be unfounded.
We should all remember the Neil and Christine Hamilton false allegations
I am not supporting him I am only saying the obvious
If he is convicted throw the book at him
-
Syd you’re probably right there may not be threads where I have criticised Johnson for his behaviour. To be honest I can’t remember and do not have the time or inclination to check. But let’s not get defensive and defective Get over yourself. Just come back at me again and then you can say you’ve had the last say on the subject which is what you always want.
That should make you happy.
-
I'd say now the odds are getting much shorter and it's a definite no then phil, if having the last word is more important than the content of comments you are in good company.
-
Syd /BST this isn’t about which party anyone supports. This is about disgraceful behaviour of a member of parliament
It’s not party political in any way which you and others automatically make everything. I probably haven’t decried Johnson and others for comments you’re right.
Let’s just stick to the point about this. She is a disgrace and her comments are abhorrent. Forget others and their behaviour. This is about her and nothing to do with party politics.
Yep. And I've said it's wrong and she's being dealt with by the party.
What I cannot understand is why you are getting so worked up about this while never once having criticised the repeated comments (at least as bad and arguably much worse) by a man who never once apologised, was never disciplined and who became PM.
Why focus purely on this case without being consistent?
-
Phil. Well done for trying, but this thread is yet another example of why ‘Off Topic’ is dying.
Many regular, well respected posters are posting less and less, if at all nowadays.
It’s a shame, but this is what happens after years and years of dogged determination from someone who appears to be slowly getting what he wanted all along: an audience with Billy (with special guests).
-
Syd /BST this isn’t about which party anyone supports. This is about disgraceful behaviour of a member of parliament
It’s not party political in any way which you and others automatically make everything. I probably haven’t decried Johnson and others for comments you’re right.
Let’s just stick to the point about this. She is a disgrace and her comments are abhorrent. Forget others and their behaviour. This is about her and nothing to do with party politics.
'It's not party political but I absolutely will only criticise one party'. There you are, Phil, easy way of saying what you mean.
-
Until I came on the forum tonight I hadn’t heard anything about the Rupa Huq remark. I feel it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s got away so lightly. If she’d been a white MP all hell would have broken out
The comments are disgraceful. She’s basically inferring to him as an “uncle tom” figure. What a disgrace. And the Labour Party complain about the attitude of the Tories. ???
KK is a well educated man who had the good fortune to have an Eton education. Aren’t minority groups asking to see people of the ethnic communities in position of power. Forget which party he represents he’s surely what all the equality groups are asking to see.
'Got away so lightly'! She has been suspended by the Labour Party and had the Labour Whip taken away! Unlike Paterson, Liddington, Pincer, the mystery 'rapist'.
When a Labour politican breaks the rules they are subject to the rules. When a Tory politican breaks the rules - they try and change the rules
Wilts, did Labour take any action against the front bench Labour MP a few weeks ago, you know, the one who made lewd suggestions to the female MP who sat next to him.
It all went a bit quiet on that.
No idea.Why dont you do some research and tell us. Find out what is happening with the (alleged) Tory rapist at the same time.
Wilts, sorry for the late response, I have had a very busy day and had gone to bed when you put your question to me last night.
I see that Phil has answered the question about the Tory MP.
As for the Labour bloke, it was back in April and I can’t see anywhere where he has been reprimanded by the Labour Party since then.
That might suggest to some that when a Labour MP breaks the rules he might not be reprimanded, as you seem to think he should be.
-
No sanctions taken against the people named as parties to the conspiracy in the AJ series, as far as we know.
This is surprising, given these are allegations of criminal activities, with supporting evidence in the data.
Part 4 from AJ now available (20 mins):
https://youtu.be/db-Gpmfajp8
Spying on members and the press, and unlawful use of data...mm!
-
Wilts I’ll save hound the trouble of looking. I think you’ll find that the whip has not been removed from the Tory MP accused of rape to not highlight who he is. After all at this time he is only The Accused. He has not been charged. We should all know how mud sticks and this allegation could be unfounded.
We should all remember the Neil and Christine Hamilton false allegations
I am not supporting him I am only saying the obvious
If he is convicted throw the book at him
Phil, if he is convicted he will go to jail.
Trouble is he is not the only one and there is a pattern. Whilst he is not suspended from the Tory Party and is still free to use all Conservative Party facilities and talk to other Tory members - who may be witness in a forthcoming trial.
Another Tory MP is accused of having used a date-rape drug on four victims, including a fellow MP. He is not suspended.
Rob Roberts was found guilty of sexually harrassing staff. Although he was suspened whilst he was banned from Parliament as soon as the ban was lifted he was immediately allowed back into the Tory Party.
David Warburton has been named in his rape, sexual assult and drug use allegations - and rightly suspended by the Party (although he should be thrown out - I'm not sure what more evidence you need than your photo with lines of coke on the front of the Sunday Papers)?
-
Until I came on the forum tonight I hadn’t heard anything about the Rupa Huq remark. I feel it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s got away so lightly. If she’d been a white MP all hell would have broken out
The comments are disgraceful. She’s basically inferring to him as an “uncle tom” figure. What a disgrace. And the Labour Party complain about the attitude of the Tories. ???
KK is a well educated man who had the good fortune to have an Eton education. Aren’t minority groups asking to see people of the ethnic communities in position of power. Forget which party he represents he’s surely what all the equality groups are asking to see.
'Got away so lightly'! She has been suspended by the Labour Party and had the Labour Whip taken away! Unlike Paterson, Liddington, Pincer, the mystery 'rapist'.
When a Labour politican breaks the rules they are subject to the rules. When a Tory politican breaks the rules - they try and change the rules
Wilts, did Labour take any action against the front bench Labour MP a few weeks ago, you know, the one who made lewd suggestions to the female MP who sat next to him.
It all went a bit quiet on that.
No idea.Why dont you do some research and tell us. Find out what is happening with the (alleged) Tory rapist at the same time.
Wilts, sorry for the late response, I have had a very busy day and had gone to bed when you put your question to me last night.
I see that Phil has answered the question about the Tory MP.
As for the Labour bloke, it was back in April and I can’t see anywhere where he has been reprimanded by the Labour Party since then.
That might suggest to some that when a Labour MP breaks the rules he might not be reprimanded, as you seem to think he should be.
No problem hound.
If a Labour MP breaks the rules they should be reprimanded. I have no idea if this guy was or not. I am sure the victim(s) would have had something to say if they weren't.
Same for any MP in any party. Any idea what's happeing to Chris Pincher, drunk and groping people in public btw? Not heard anything about him?
-
I have no idea if he has faced any charges wilts but I heard a rumour he has changed his name by deed poll to Bottom Pincher.
-
Nobody known to have faced investigation by Labour over these serious allegations, so I expect class action in the courts to follow.
The mainstream media blackout in the UK is deafening;
https://www.medialens.org/2022/mass-media-omerta-burying-al-jazeeras-the-labour-files/
I wonder why?
-
I can understand Labour supporting media keeping quiet - rightly or wrongly - it if this is such a big story why isn’t it headline news in huge font in the Express and Mail, both of which have only just cleaned the shite off their noses for being up Boris Johnson’s arse for so long?
-
It is simply not credible that if there was a real story that would badly hurt Starmer, with Labour 30 points ahead, The Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph wouldn't run with it.
The only people running with it are Corbynistas. Go figure...
-
For those who missed it live, the Aljazeera investigation into UK Labour;
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/23/unprecedented-leak-exposes-inner-workings-of-uk-labour-party
This is part 1.
Part 2 and 3 on Sat and Monday.
I had to check the date on this post a few times because this report came out 2 and a half years ago. Feels like with Labour currently doing well some Tory supporters are doing all they can to try and throw mud and the Tories on here have been lapping it up.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp
-
DO.
It's really NOT Tory supporters chucking the mud.
-
DO,
That report is not the same as the data release obtained by AJ, although they speak to some of the same issues.
The AJ Labour Files rests upon an evidential base that their legal team feels cannot be challenged in court.
This is why Labour are keeping schtum, because if they felt that they were misrepresented they could obtain redress via the courts...that they have not tells you a story!
-
BST,
The Express did cover the data release, but not as a major story.
Likewise, it was mentioned in the Guardian as a passing comment.
It has received a wider coverage abroad, some examples here;
https://twitter.com/JamesKleinfeld/status/1573685148456976385
Steve Reed MP, David Evans, and Labour legal head Alex Barros-Curtis were made aware of the hacked data, saw it used against Labour members and failed to report ongoing hacking to the police & ICO.
The idea that only people on the left are concerned about unlawful activities is barking mad.
Turning a blind eye to blatant illegality is morally bankrupt.
The reason mainstream media do not want to cover the story is that they support Keith as a "stopgap Tory" in the event of Truss self combusting.
Truss is not a mainstream Tory btw.
They know establishment interests will be supported by Keith/Reeves, offering a new management of the same economic model supported by the Conservative orthodoxy.
No rebuttals or counter evidence has been offered by Labour, the only response is continuing silence.
Former Telegraph editor Peter Oborne is among those worried about the ethical and lawful breakdown from Labour head office.
The only people really trying to ignore the Labour Files data release, and the Forde Report, are the extreme centrists who stand accused in both of deplorable actions. If you cannot see the weakness in your own team, you can never resolve the questions raised.
Wilful blindness is a damaging condition...go figure!
-
Absolute guesswork
''The reason mainstream media do not want to cover the story is that they support Keith as a "stopgap Tory" in the event of Truss self combusting.
Truss is not a mainstream Tory btw''
Proof?
-
Proof Syd?
The only person raising eyebrows is you...no-one in Labour is contesting the claim other than by stonewalling.
You have the original 850 page leaked report, mentioned in the Independent article Donny Osmond posted.
Then there is the Forde Report, with its conclusion of a "hierarchy of racism".
Now the AJ Labour Files series, which could be actionable if any of it were to be libellous.
Zero response in these circumstances is for a reason...that no valid defence is available.
I expect you agree with this article in the Independent;
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-files-forde-report-keir-starmer-racism-b2198773.html
You are not one to brush conspiracy and criminal behaviour under the carpet Syd, are you?
-
that isn't proof it's more of the same, give me some proof Albie
-
Interesting piece by former FT journo Matt Kennard on infiltration;
https://declassifieduk.org/the-secretive-us-embassy-backed-group-cultivating-the-british-left/
Not a good look!
-
Interesting piece by former FT journo Matt Kennard on infiltration;
https://declassifieduk.org/the-secretive-us-embassy-backed-group-cultivating-the-british-left/
Not a good look!
It's totally fine albie as far as I'm concerned , I think it's pretty evident what the Labour Party wants to be and if they get elected to government then good on em .
-
Interesting piece by former FT journo Matt Kennard on infiltration;
https://declassifieduk.org/the-secretive-us-embassy-backed-group-cultivating-the-british-left/
Not a good look!
Let me get this right, cos I'm simple headed and I'm struggling here.
This piece starts off saying BAP "added senior Labour politicians to its secret membership rolls".
Then it says about one of them, "James McMahon, Labour’s shadow minister for the environment, declared (in the Commons Register of Interests) he was a member of the BAP in 2015". While the other two have it in the Register of Interests that they had expenses paid by BAP to attend a BAP conference.
Where is the secrecy here?
-
It seems straightforward to me, BST.
Kennard is saying that some have declared associations, but it is unknown how many others have undeclared associations. This is problematic where industry and foreign interests are looking to influence policy debate.
You could ask Kennard on twitter, if it is troubling you!
-
from the article:
''Four senior members of Boris Johnson’s administration were also made fellows this year while working inside the UK government''
Maybe it's another JPPG they are quite secretive apparently.
-
Interesting piece by former FT journo Matt Kennard on infiltration;
https://declassifieduk.org/the-secretive-us-embassy-backed-group-cultivating-the-british-left/
Not a good look!
Let me get this right, cos I'm simple headed and I'm struggling here.
This piece starts off saying BAP "added senior Labour politicians to its secret membership rolls".
Then it says about one of them, "James McMahon, Labour’s shadow minister for the environment, declared (in the Commons Register of Interests) he was a member of the BAP in 2015". While the other two have it in the Register of Interests that they had expenses paid by BAP to attend a BAP conference.
Where is the secrecy here?
“Secret membership rolls”
Mmmm, I reckon they could be cheese and ham.
Could a BAP conference be people talking about bacon ones.
-
Latest offering from the award winning AJ Investigations Unit;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiODoWurA64
Martin Forde talks about his report and its impact, and the murky depths of the BBC Panorama fiasco.
Hard to see who comes out worse, Team Keith or the BBC?
-
Latest offering from the award winning AJ Investigations Unit;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiODoWurA64
Martin Forde talks about his report and its impact, and the murky depths of the BBC Panorama fiasco.
Hard to see who comes out worse, Team Keith or the BBC?
Well, even the Guardian has woken up to cover the comments of Forde;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims
Interesting that the BBC Panorama story is getting little response.
The BBC themselves lying doggo, no moves to suspend the Panorama team over their interference with Forde.
-
The Guardian actually breaking the journo omerta! I'm genuinely shocked, but very little will happen.
It was obvious before, and it's obvious now. Rancid party I'm increasingly convinced is beyond saving.
-
The Guardian actually breaking the journo omerta! I'm genuinely shocked, but very little will happen.
It was obvious before, and it's obvious now. Rancid party I'm increasingly convinced is beyond saving.
It will no doubt be the left's fault which is the go to strategy when the heat is on the Labour Party centrists and the right .
We even get threatened a Tory government is our fault because we aren't exactly enthusiastic about voting Labour or we are admirers of Mogg , Farage and Johnson because we voted for Brexit even though their EU stance is aligned with Thatcher , Cameron and Osborne .
That's the mindset of these utterly deplorable characters if you don't tow the line .
I take one look at Keith and what he is and I'm almost choking on the vomit .
But it's better than the Tories .........
-
Did you complain about the racism under corbyn tyke? it was a lot worse then
-
A number of black MPs have spoken up about it now, not all hardcore Corbynites either.
Meanwhile Neil Coyle MP gets quietly readmitted to the party after downing 16 pints and racially abusing an Asian journalist in the Westminster lobby. Of course he's a factional ally of the mob currently running the party, I'm sure that's a coincidence though.
-
corbyn would be welcomed back if he accepted reality
-
Don't know if I'm missing something obvious but that entire article that Albie posted seems to include just one up to date piece of news, where Forde says "My slight anxiety is that in terms of hierarchy, and genuine underlying concerns about wider racial issues, it’s not in my view a sufficient response to say that was then, this is now."
OK, that may be an issue to address, but even the author of the report doesn't seem to be screaming that there's an existential issue.
Anyone?
-
Did you complain about the racism under corbyn tyke? it was a lot worse then
Would that be the 0.3% of complaints that Corbyn acknowledged or the 30% that was put in the minds of the electorate to once again question his leadership ?
Truth is only 0% is acceptable by myself .
-
That why he was chucked out cos he wouldn't acknowledge it
-
corbyn would be welcomed back if he accepted reality
You mean tow the party line don't you ?
You sell out merchants might think it's acceptable to gain power by not having any principles but that doesn't mean everyone is willing to do that .
-
whatever tyke
-
That why he was chucked out cos he wouldn't acknowledge it
He was chucked out because the Labour Party wants to put as much distance between themselves and the left in order to present themselves as electable to government .
That was his real crime .
-
Did you complain about the racism under corbyn tyke? it was a lot worse then
Would that be the 0.3% of complaints that Corbyn acknowledged or the 30% that was put in the minds of the electorate to once again question his leadership ?
Truth is only 0% is acceptable by myself .
You just buried corbyn with this tyke, would you like another shovel?
-
Did you complain about the racism under corbyn tyke? it was a lot worse then
Would that be the 0.3% of complaints that Corbyn acknowledged or the 30% that was put in the minds of the electorate to once again question his leadership ?
Truth is only 0% is acceptable by myself .
You just buried corbyn with this tyke, would you like another shovel?
I didn't bury Corbyn the likes of you did .
Seems to me you cry foul play when the Tory Press goes to work on things you agree with but are happy to play along with them when you don't .
I thinks there's a word for that which just about sums up the Labour centrists .
None the less I can do compromise , this man wasn't from the left but he understood the left .
You couldn't make one John Smith out of a thousand Keith's .
https://youtu.be/SAbzdA0XJuM
-
The Guardian actually breaking the journo omerta! I'm genuinely shocked, but very little will happen.
It was obvious before, and it's obvious now. Rancid party I'm increasingly convinced is beyond saving.
It will no doubt be the left's fault which is the go to strategy when the heat is on the Labour Party centrists and the right .
We even get threatened a Tory government is our fault because we aren't exactly enthusiastic about voting Labour or we are admirers of Mogg , Farage and Johnson because we voted for Brexit even though their EU stance is aligned with Thatcher , Cameron and Osborne .
That's the mindset of these utterly deplorable characters if you don't tow the line .
I take one look at Keith and what he is and I'm almost choking on the vomit .
But it's better than the Tories .........
Wasn't Thatcher a remainer tyke?
-
Did you complain about the racism under corbyn tyke? it was a lot worse then
Would that be the 0.3% of complaints that Corbyn acknowledged or the 30% that was put in the minds of the electorate to once again question his leadership ?
Truth is only 0% is acceptable by myself .
You just buried corbyn with this tyke, would you like another shovel?
I didn't bury Corbyn the likes of you did .
Seems to me you cry foul play when the Tory Press goes to work on things you agree with but are happy to play along with them when you don't .
I thinks there's a word for that which just about sums up the Labour centrists .
None the less I can do compromise , this man wasn't from the left but he understood the left .
You couldn't make one John Smith out of a thousand Keith's .
https://youtu.be/SAbzdA0XJuM
corbyn was master of his own destiny even after he gave the tories a massive win and he still can't accept reality
-
Did you complain about the racism under corbyn tyke? it was a lot worse then
Would that be the 0.3% of complaints that Corbyn acknowledged or the 30% that was put in the minds of the electorate to once again question his leadership ?
Truth is only 0% is acceptable by myself .
You just buried corbyn with this tyke, would you like another shovel?
I didn't bury Corbyn the likes of you did .
Seems to me you cry foul play when the Tory Press goes to work on things you agree with but are happy to play along with them when you don't .
I thinks there's a word for that which just about sums up the Labour centrists .
None the less I can do compromise , this man wasn't from the left but he understood the left .
You couldn't make one John Smith out of a thousand Keith's .
https://youtu.be/SAbzdA0XJuM
corbyn was master of his own destiny even after he gave the tories a massive win and he still can't accept reality
And still attained more votes in defeat that you lot can only dream about .
Keith will probably win the next election with 2 million less votes than Corbyn got .
No wonder you lot love FPTP , take that away and the electorate would put you in the political graveyard next to the Whigs .
-
Please try to not change direction with each post tyke
-
corbyn was master of his own destiny even after he gave the tories a massive win and he still can't accept reality
Really?
Perhaps compare the Tory vote in 2019 versus 2017. (I'll help you here: It barely moved)
Consider the Labour vote in 2019 versus 2017. (Again I'll help you: it collapsed)
What was the difference in 2019 and 2017? (I'll just give you a hint here: It wasn't who was leading the Labour Party)
-
My posts are connected to racism in the labor party and how corbyn reaction and and acted or didn't.
-
corbyn was master of his own destiny even after he gave the tories a massive win and he still can't accept reality
Really?
Perhaps compare the Tory vote in 2019 versus 2017. (I'll help you here: It barely moved)
Consider the Labour vote in 2019 versus 2017. (Again I'll help you: it collapsed)
What was the difference in 2019 and 2017? (I'll just give you a hint here: It wasn't who was leading the Labour Party)
Ah yes. That Brexit myth.
Labour was defeated in the 2019 election because they had a policy of Ref2.
THE most intellectually idle trope in modern politics.
1) Labour had a Ref2 policy.
2) Labour lost heavily.
Therefore 1) caused 2).
Totally ignored what happened to Labour's poll figures in early 2019 when Corbyn let his mask slip and came out in favour of Brexit.
Labour's poll figures slipped to below 20%. They lost 5 million supporters in 6 months.
All before Ref2 had been adopted as party policy.
After Ref2 WAS adopted, there was an abrupt rise in Labour support.
But let's not allow inconvenient facts to get in the way of a good polemic, eh Branton?
-
Billy
"in early 2019 when Corbyn let his mask slip and came out in favour of Brexit." An inconvenient fact?
Corbyn came out in favour of Brexit happening on the morning of 24th June 2016 when he stood in Parliament Square and told the nation that the result of the referendum should be respected and Article 50 should be triggered asap.
He remained in favour of Brexit happening throughout the 2017 General Election campaign consistently stating the referendum vote should be respected. And the Labour Party went with him on this - respecting the referendum vote was included in their 2017 Manifesto.
So for your above statement to be fact you need to show evidence please of both: -
1) Corbyn altering his view on Brexit from being in favour of it occurring to neutrality some point between the 2017 GE and early 2019
and then 2) Of him reversing back to being in favour of Brexit happening in early 2019.
I await with baited breath.
But fully expect the usual whataboutery and evasion.
-
More great myths of our time - A 2nd referendum would not have stopped Brexit happening - it would have confirmed the public's will that the Brexit deal was what they wanted.
Unless people (Brexiteers) are saying that the public had changed their minds and they would wish to reverse their first vote?
-
But if a 2nd referendum had confirmed a Brexit majority you'd have still been a Remoaner so what would have been the point?
-
Branton.
If you really want to talk about this, I'll talk all day. But you're going to need to have done your homework. And since it's my youngest's birthday today, and this is an argument that takes a while to understand, bear with me while I do this in bits.
Here's the first part of my line.
1) Corbyn was always a militant supporter of Brexit. There's no doubt about that. He is and was a devoted Bennite. He WAS delighted on the morning after the vote as you say standing on Westminster Green at sparrowfart demanding Brexit there and then.
2) But he was part of a tiny minority among Labour MPs, members and voters.
3)So he usually had to keep his passionate support for Brexit under wraps. He did virtually nothing during the Brexit campaign, literally going on holiday at one point. The night before the vote, he was on a podcast by an obscure American far left organisation squirming as they quizzed him on why he had (nominally) supported Brexit. It was an excruciating thing to observe.
4) I'll Allie him his moment of letting his mask slip the morning after the vote. He'd achieved his and his dead Master's prime ambition. But then he had to start thinking about how to hold the party together. That required dissembling.
5) The Labour manifesto was a masterpiece of dissembling. It promised an end to Freedom of Movement as well as a deal that would retain the benefits of the SM and CU. Go and read it. It literally promises both those mutually incompatible things. It was like the Bible. You can take from it whatever message you want. And Labour voters did.
6) I said at the time it was a work of political genius. It effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue for Labour at that election. But I also said it was a trick that could only be played once. It worked in 2017 because no-one knew what Brexit was going to look like. So it could promise things that couldn't be delivered together, and still sound plausible. I said all along that by the next Election, that deliberate ambiguity couldn't work - Labour would have to come down on one side or the other.
TBC.
-
Back to the Labour Files, subject of this thread.
BST,
Your post 92 certainly does miss the point, by rather a large deflection.
The Guardian article was a comment upon the Aljazeera video with Martin Forde.
You can see it here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiODoWurA64
What is interesting is that the Guardian focuses only upon the unaddressed question of the "hierarchy of racism" that Forde identifies.
All well and good, but it fails to mention the confected anti-semitism narrative, which was actively promoted by the Guardian, and the Blue Labour right.
By doing so, it looks to preserve the rationale the legacy media used to undermine Corbyn, and avoid scrutiny of the role of the BBC in the fabrication of evidence to their discredited Panorama documentary.
Forde found some of the Panorama content to be "entirely misleading", yet the BBC asked that the report be amended to omit their duplicity.
You will remember that Keith rejected legal advice and chose to settle out of court with those claiming disadvantage from the "Labour Leaks".
Forde having supported the leakers in his report, the Labour Party is on very shaky ground to see this out.
Keith will now be in the firing line for costs when the court action against him is heard, the Information Commissioner having already found his case against the whistleblowers to be without merit.
-
Syd,
Post after post and you still have not read the EHRC report, have you?
There is a letter to the Guardian from Geoffrey Bindman, KC, setting out the key points;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/23/attacks-on-your-editorial-about-the-ehrc-labour-and-antisemitism-are-baffling
Unlike Sir Geoffrey, I am not surprised by the selective reporting of the Guardian.
The final line from Sir Geoffrey is very much to the point, is it not?
-
7) The reason that ambiguity couldn't work again was that, as we got closer to actually leaving the EU, the reality of what Brexit entailed could no longer be hidden. You want to end freedom of movement? Fine. But that means you are definitively outside the SM and CU, and that means you cannot retain the benefits of membership of the SM and CU. Branton, YOU think that was obvious from 2016. It might have been to political obsessives like there and me, but it clearly wasn't to the majority of voters, or Labour would have been skewered in 2017.
8) By late 2018, the real choices required by different forms of Brexit were impossible to obscure. An study around that time indicated that almost 70% of the population wanted Brexit cancelled or for us to join the EEA (the latter, which was my position by the way, around twice as popular as the former). https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2700/RR2785/RAND_RR2785.pdf
9) But that sort of Brexit wasn't on the agenda by late 2018. May's Govt was embroiled in internal schisms about just how hard a Brexit we were going to go for. It was a febrile atmosphere. A very hard Brexit, or, God forbid, No Deal, had never been openly discussed in 2016. Yet here we were, being driven towards that by the ERG and Johnson's own ego and ambition. Attitudes were hardening on all sides.
10) Corbyn had kept his head down on the topic since the 2017 election. He wanted the subject to go away, because he knew that HE wanted Brexit, but the overwhelming majority of his MPs, party members and voters didn't.
11) In this atmosphere, the LD policy of asking for a confirmatory referendum in the final Brexit deal, with the option to accept that deal or cancel Brexit, started to gain popularity on the left. Corbyn was in danger of being outflanked, and made an aggressive re-entry into the issue at Xmas 2018. In an interview in the Guardian, he clearly stated that Brexit WOUKD go ahead under Labour.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu
12) On the day of that article, Labour was at 39% in the polls. Within 5 months, Labour's poll average dropped to 25%. In some polls they were as low as 17%. In the June EU election, they polled 13%, their lowest in a national poll since before WWI.
13) Remember, throughout that time, Labour's clear, official policy was to embrace Brexit.
14) Where had Labour's supporters gone? Have a look.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#/media/File%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election.svg
The indication is Labour had haemorrhaged support to the Lads who had a clear policy at the time of supporting Ref2.
15) Labour finally chose Ref2 as its policy at the late September conference. Again, look at the poll numbers. Almost immediately, Labour's vote share rose and the LDs' shrank by an equal amount.
16) The idea that Starmer pushing for Ref2 lost Labour the 2019 GE is a myth, propagated by Brexit supporters and hard-line Corbynistas. It evaporates as soon as you look at the evidence. But I suspect it will be around for decades, because so few people really want to engage with evidence that contradicts what they want to be true.
-
Albie.
Let me get this right. You post a link to an article to support your case. When I point out that said article doesn't support your case, you rubbish the article.
Let me know when you've decided what you want me to read and what you don't.
-
BST,
As clearly explained, the position set out in the AJ video is the baseline.
The Guardian article is a selective commentary on that, disregarding the actions of the BBC in the fraudulent Panorama documentary.
The article is correct in the observation on the "hierarchy of racism", but negligent in failing to cover the other issues raised by Forde in the AJ documentary.
The article completely supports the racism point, despite your misunderstanding.
Please do try to follow a thread in order......it is illogical to comment on the article without having considered the video upon which it is based.
-
Syd,
Post after post and you still have not read the EHRC report, have you?
There is a letter to the Guardian from Geoffrey Bindman, KC, setting out the key points;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/23/attacks-on-your-editorial-about-the-ehrc-labour-and-antisemitism-are-baffling
Unlike Sir Geoffrey, I am not surprised by the selective reporting of the Guardian.
The final line from Sir Geoffrey is very much to the point, is it not?
No I haven't and I haven't read the Forde report either Albie, have you? to my recollection you didn't challenge the summary I posted (forde report) which I thought you would have if you'd have been up to speed and disagreed. Looking at the racism that was allowed to fester under corbyn namely the antisemitism on which Starmer acted therefore I conclude that there is less racism now. As for MM muddying the waters with a racist being allowed back into the party, it was a lazy trope that was used not racism directed at a person due to colour, the MP was suspended and then later reinstated. There has been worse language used on these fora.
-
Syd,
Yes, I have read the documents, including the original 850 page "Labour Leaks" which was what Forde was asked to examine.
The summary you posted is only a partial reflection, and misses key points and context.
With regard to anti-semitism, of 220 cases referred for consideration, only 2 were found to have substance.
This is in an organisation of over 500k members at the time. Both of those examples are contested, and will be resolved in the high court.
So not only was there very little evidence of AS, but Forde concluded that the Labour Leaders office under Corbyn made their best efforts to improve the party proceedures for handling complaints.
Forde does point up the different treatment given to other forms of racism within Labour, partly in consequence of the focus upon minimal AS found.
Syd, you wrote:
"Looking at the racism that was allowed to fester under corbyn namely the antisemitism on which Starmer acted therefore I conclude that there is less racism now."......what evidence is this comment based on, it is certainly NOT in the documents?
This is why the key finding of a "hierarchy of racism" is so important, and remains to be resolved.
-
Thanks Albie, as said I haven't read either so it would be good if you could take the summary produced by the Guardian and show where each point was wring and where it was lacking.
-
Billy
I hope you and yours enjoyed your family celebrations yesterday.
That's a long response. I agree with some of your analysis, disagree with some whilst some is factually just plain wrong.
I don't have the time or inclination to give a line by line critique. And neither do I need to given you have omitted a major point which when brought into consideration renders your argument irrelevant and proves your conclusion to be wholly inaccurate.
That major point is how the First Past the Post General Election voting system in the UK works.
Had the EU referendum had been organized under FPTP Leave would have won by a landslide. Around 2/3rds of constituencies voted to leave (so c. a 1/3rd voted Remain).
Turning round such a landslide on a single issue is an insurmountable task.
Therefore from the moment Johnson was elected PM and decided to break the Parliamentary deadlock on Brexit via a General Election any opportunity to stop the UK leaving the EU was lost.
By campaigning on a Remain ticket and converting the Election into a de facto Leave/Remain rerun Labour sealed not only their defeat but also their annihilation at the ballot box. Before the election was even called.
As I've stated previously on this forum Labour's 2nd referendum policy really was the shortest suicide note in history.
-
Branton.
You could at least do me the courtesy of explaining which parts of my posts were "just plain wrong".
As it is, what you're effectively saying is "I've read what you wrote and I'm still right."
What you are continuing to do is to ignore the massive hole that Corbyn had taken Labour into BEFORE Ref2 was the party policy.
How many seats do you think Labour would have won in the 2019 election had their support stayed at 22-25% which is where it flatined from Jun-Sept 2019 (while official policy was to embrace Brexit).
And why do you think that support for Labour immediately began to rise (and support for the LDs fall commensurately) when Labour did adopt a Ref2 policy?
If you don't address those points, you can't claim to have a serious critique.
-
Billy
Well firstly (point 5) you can be in a CU with the EU and not have freedom of movement - ask the good people of Turkey.
1) You assume Labour's collapse in support in 2019 was wholly down to Remain voters. This is provably wrong.
Official policy may have embraced Brexit but Leave voters hardly viewed Labour as pro-Leave by this point.
What's pro-leave about their referendum on the deal policy launched in Feb 2019; blocking Brexit in Parliament (as reported in the RWP); or senior backbenchers/big beasts coming out continually for Remain??
Labour's huge loss of support in 2019 came from losing both Remain and Leave voters.
Proof? You've provided it already. After Sep-19 the increase in Labour's polling exactly matched that of the LD's fall. Where is the fall in support from Labour Leavers at this point?
Follow the logic. The loss of Red Wall votes (and seats) must have occurred pre-Sep and already be baked in to the 22-25% polling you mention.
2) The Maths. I've already proved the 22-25% excludes LD Remainers and Red Wall Leave voters.
So either regain Red Wall voters and 61 seats. Bringing Labour 122 seats closer to the Tories.
Or (as happened) gain 7.5% in vote share from the LDs. The LDs actually got 11.5% and 10 seats. But this 7.5% is concentrated in Remain areas. 61 seats is pushing it; 122 seats no chance.
But I provide this Maths to humour you. In reality things are not as simplistic as your analysis is suggesting.
3) You appear to believe Labour were faced with a binary choice Leave or Remain/Red Wall or LD Remainers. Untrue.
Labour can never win an election or maximise support by pandering to one part of it's electors whilst thumbing it's nose at the other. Whether in general terms or on one important yet divisive issue.
Labour wins by building coalition. Through compromise.
In this case. Yes leave the EU and SM in order to end freedom of movement so alleviating the main concern of many Red Wall voters. Stay in a CU with the EU and remain strongly aligned to the SM (again you're wrong - the EU would embrace such an idea remember the Backstop and Verhofstadt celebrating with his chums declaring "we've made them a colony"?) to alleviate the Remain side.
i.e. maximise overall votes by targeting both Red Wallers and LD Remainers to vote Labour.
4) You're correct Labour neutralised Brexit in 2017. Also that a more detailed Brexit policy was required in 2019.
However campaigning on a "soft" Brexit would have neutralised some of the vitriol on the subject (no not as effectively as in 2017) thus allowing Labour's popular other policies more room to breath whilst exposing the Tories lack of policies.
Again as you show Labour's gains post Sep-19 were almost wholly due to Remainers switching from the LDs. No switching due to non-Brexit policies - which was seen on a massive scale in the 2017 campaign.
5) You appear to believe that Ref2 was the correct policy as it minimised Labour's defeat. The aim of the Labour Party is to be in Government not to be a protest party or chase lost causes (regardless of how important).
I explained in my previous post why stopping Brexit was doomed once a GE was called (2/3rds seats voted Leave) and therefore why embracing Remain killed any chance of Labour winning. Killed it. Dead.
Yes the chance of victory was slim otherwise - but that's what was said 3 months ahead of the 2017 vote.
6) That's the theory. If only there was some overarching piece of evidence to prove my point.
Oh yes! The result of the election itself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election. Just look at it!
Labour's worst result in nearly 100 years. And you're claiming it's the best they could have hoped for! And that their Brexit policy was correct even in hindsight?! When: -
- The election was held because of Brexit to sort the Parliamentary impasse
- Labour's opponents had by all accounts made a pig's ear out of negotiating Brexit
- Labour's Brexit policy was easily the most talked about and reported on in it's entire manifesto
- Labour came within a gnat's whisker of being the biggest party just 2.5 years earlier
- And that with the same leadership and broadly similar policies - except of cause your cause celebre.
I hope you don't find this discourteous but I'm giving your "homework" a D-.
-
That's a lot to respond to Branton. I'll eat the elephant 1 slice at a time.
1) You're absolutely right that we could be in the CU without FoM. That's a mistake by me but it doesn't fundamentally change my point. What we couldn't do is what the Lab 2017 manifesto claimed: End FoM & retain all the benefits of the CU AND SM. Not "close alignment". All the benefits.
2) You're saying the Red Wall Labour voters must have left Labour before Sept 2019. I disagree with your logic on that (see 3 below) although I think your conclusion is right. But hang on a minute. The reason this discussion started was you claiming that Starmer was the architect of Labour's 2019 defeat. And you say that it wasn't the move to a formal Ref2 policy that lost Labour those votes, it was the mood music before that.
And presumably you blame Starmer for that. Otherwise, what are we arguing about?
Only...it wasn't just Starmer. It was anyone and everyone outside Corbyn's bunker, who saw the catastrophe he was leading Labour into (point 4 below).
Have a guess what backstabbing Blairite, EU-loving Centrist Quisling came out unequivocally for REF2 in May 2019. Go on...have a guess.
3) You agree with me that the rise in Labour's vote after they a cepted the Ref2 policy went in lockstep with the fall in LD support. But look at the FALL in Lab support earlier in 2019. It went in lockstep with a rise in the LD support. There's no evidence that Labour supporters were running off to the Tories or to Farage. The churn in Lab support in 2019 was to and from the LDs. My take? Labour had lost the Red Wall support before REF2 was mentioned. And the primary reason was how Corbyn came across to them. I had literally hundreds of Red Wall voters close the door in my face when canvassing in 2019, saying "never while he is in charge".
4) Your analysis of what would have happened had Labour miraculously won back all the Red Wall voters misses a massive point. What good would that have done to their electoral chances had they done that and not regained the supporters they'd lost to the LDs? Go do the maths.
And you are committing the category error that so many Brexit supporters have made on this subject. You assume that all the Lab voters in Red Wall seats were Brexit supporters. In fact, even in the most strongly Brexit supporting Red Wall seats, there were very large minorities of Labour supporters who were anti Brexit. Lose them and you've likely lost the seat anyway. Labour wasn't in a place to win many seats by appealing ONLY to Lab Brexit supporters. Because they comprised at most 25% of Labour support nationally.
5) if you REALLY think that "we made them a colony" clip was serious, I'm wasting my time.
Tell me you DO realise it was black comedy.
You DO don't you?
-
So the real enablers for the current shit show are Labour members who elected Corbyn as party leader, thereby giving the tories easy election wins!
-
Ldr,
Both the Labour Leaks report, and the Forde Report to investigate it, make it very clear that the Labour right were active in undermining the leadership of Corbyn.
The intention in doing so was to damage the electoral position of Labour to the advantage of the Tories.
Some in Labour head office preferred a Labour defeat, if it increased their chance of promoting neo liberal alternatives to socialism.
The real enablers of the Johnson pantomime are those who worked against the alternative, and indulged in the media feeding frenzy about anti-semitism to discredit Labour.
We now know that this was largely fictional distraction, but the damage was done.
-
Albie, apologies my sarcasm didn’t translate well in text
-
Sorry Ldr, I thought you had misunderstood the Forde findings.
Meanwhile, the purges continue....Leicester now:
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/red-mist-leicester-19-sitting-8270715
A wee bit Stalinist, is owd Keith!
-
Billy
a) This debate started because, against all evidence, you insisted I was wrong in blaming Labour's Brexit policy on their 2019 GE catastrophe. I've not mentioned Starmer.
b) "There's no evidence that Labour supporters were running off to the Tories/Farage." Provably wrong.
Dec-18 to Sep-19 Labour polling fell 16 points from 39% to 23%. LD support rose 9 points 9% to 18%. No other players in town so c. 7% of Labour support went to the Tories (or Brexit party).
Don Valley (my) constituency 2017 to 2019 Labour lost 17.8% vote share. Tories/Brexit Party gained 15.2%. Same analysis can be given in the other 61 Red Wall seats lost.
Evidence clearly shows 2017 Labour Leave voters switched to Tories/Brexit Party. Fact.
c) "The primary reason [Red Wall voters abandoned Labour] was how Corbyn came across to them." Logically implausible.
The national Labour vote held firm at c 40% till Dec-18. Why would Red Wall voters suddenly in 2019 abandon Labour because of Corbyn having supported Labour under to him up to then?? Why would Left wing voters suddenly switch to the Right (point b above) just because of the party leader? Why did this just happen in Red Wall seats where Corbyn, as you say, held the same view as the majority on the major topic of the day??
d) No miracle needed to persuade Labour Red Wall Leavers who'd supported Labour all their lives to switch back to Labour. Just a promise to implement Brexit - the one key reason they otherwise switched to Tories/Farage.
e) I did the Maths in point 2 of my previous post. 7.5% of LD vote highly unlikely to be 61, let alone 122 seats. You're still stuck on this binary either/or argument (see point 3 on my prior post).
f) I clearly stated "Red Wall Labour Leavers" in my prior post. I certainly did not assume all Labour voters in these areas were Leave voters.
g) "Lose [Labour Remainers] and you've likely lost the seat anyway." Almost certainly wrong. 2 reasons: -
1) Mathematical. Remainers were a minority in these seats. Their votes in summation mattered less. But also disproportionally so. Lose 1 of their votes the Labour majority falls by 1. Lose a Leaver to the Tories, the majority falls by 2.
2) FPTP system. LDs have no presence in the Red Wall. They can't win the seat. Labour Remainers likely therefore to stick with Labour to stop the Tories getting in. Esp if (point 3 prior post) Labour are campaigning on a much "softer" Brexit than the Tories - which would certainly been the case if Labour had followed Leave.
-
Branton
As it happens, we don't need to go on your or my arguments about which 2017 Labour voters went to support other parties and when.
You Gov systematically record that information in their polls. All the data can be found in the links in the table in in National Polling Results here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Taking four polls at random.
On 7 Jan 2018, of those people who voted Lab in 2017:
88% still supported Lab
3% had switched to Con
6% to LD
1% to Green
1% to UKIP
By 16 Dec 2018, just before Corbyn very firmly committed Lab to seeing through Brexit, of those people who voted Lab in 2017:
83% still supported Lab
4% had switched to Con
5% to LD
4% to Green
3% to UKIP
2% to SNP
Just hold there for a moment. Across 2018, Labour's 2017 support had held firm. 4-5% had switched to avowedly Hard Brexit parties. 7-11% had switched to soft Brexit/Remain parties.
Look what happened next.
By 10 Apr 2019, of those people who voted Lab in 2017:
69% still supported Lab
4% had switched to Con
9% to LD
6% to Green
3% to Change UK
3% to Brexit Party
3% to UKIP
2% to SNP
So 10% had switched to Hard Brexit parties. 20% to soft/No Brexit.
And still it went on.
By 18 Sept 2019, just before the conference that committed Labour to Ref 2, of those people who voted Lab in 2017:
50% still supported Lab
4% had switched to Con
26% to LD
6% to Green
9% to Brexit Party
2% to SNP
2% to Plaid Cwmry
That's 13% lost to Hard Brexit parties. 36% to No/Soft Brexit.
This is the point I've been making for 3 years. Brexit supporters of right and Left want to blame Labour's disaster in 2019 on having a Ref2 policy. But they never look at the counterfactual. YES Labour lost Red Wall Brexit supporters. But by September 2019, they had lost THREE TIMES as many anti-Brexit supporters to other parties. If Labour had attempted to woo back the Red Wall voters, they MAY have limited that damage. But across the rest of the country, they would have been decimated. It's not beyond possibility that they would have been reduced to around 100 seats. And that's the sort of massacre that finishes off political parties. Like happened to the Liberals 100 years before.
Labour cannot EVER win power now without the support of young, internationalist, city dwelling, educated, progressive people. They were on the verge of losing a whole generation of those voters to the LDs, Greens and SNP/PC in late 2019. They were never, ever going to win the 2019 election, but they needed to stop it becoming an existential loss.
The policy, bluntly, was to keep the majority of their support, let the Red Wall go temporarily, then win it back when Red Wall voters realise what a shower they had elected.
It worked as well as it could.
By 2 Dec 2019, just before the election, of those people who voted Lab in 2017:
71% still supported Lab
7% had switched to Con
11% to LD
3% to Green
3% to Brexit Party
2% to SNP
Labour had pulled back more than half the losses to the progressive parties. And lost no more than they had already lost to the Hard Brexit parties in the fervour of early 2019.
-
Billy
You started this debate by (falsely) accusing me of lazily interpreting facts to draw a conclusion I want to be true but you are continually doing the same. You narrowly analyse the data at a superficial, simplistic level until it matches your narrative. And then you stop.
If we had PR your analysis would have merit. But we don't. We have a deeply unfair and undemocratic FPTP system which propagates a 2 party system.
Labour are judged by how they perform, not in total % votes, but seats won relative to the Tories. So for impact you need to double your Sep-19 13% vote switch to the Tories against the 36%. But there's more.....
FPTP is skewed against smaller parties (i.e. LDs) and against Remain. I've already explained why the Ref2 policy guaranteed Labour's defeat and annihilation (given 2/3rds of constituencies voted Leave).
But also each Labour vote lost to the Tories in the Red Wall was massively more damaging than any vote lost to the LDs in Remain areas.
So Labour lost c 13% of it's vote to Tories - this cost them 61 seats (or 122 seats relative to the Tories).
Per the Dec-19 poll you quote they therefore lost c. 16% of their votes to LDs et al. How many seats did this cost them in comparison? (It's a round number which often follows the words 'Doncaster Rovers' in the Sunday papers).
Here's why en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_target_seats_in_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
There were dozens of Lab held Lab/Con marginals in Leave areas which only needed a small swing away from Labour for them to lose the seat. Labour duly obliged many such swings with their Ref2 policy.
Meanwhile many seats in Remain areas are held by Labour but with huge majorities. Note only 2 target LD seats held by Labour requiring a swing under 5%.
A policy which panders to voters in ultra-safe seats but ticks off those in marginals is not good politics.
Yes Labour would have been wiped out if they had supported a form of the Tories policy on Brexit. But that was never, ever going to happen. And it's not what I'm advocating Labour should have done (note how I have the intelligence and wherewithal to be able to separate what I think was best for Labour vs what I wanted).
I'm advocating Labour should have followed a compromise "soft" Brexit. Leave the EU and end FoM but otherwise stay closely tied to the EU. In the CU and tied to the SM. This would have maximised Labour's seats and even given them some small hope of victory (rather than guaranteed defeat).
There was a mood for compromise in the country - you've provided the evidence re high support for the EEA option
Labour can't win without the support of young, internationalist, city dwelling, educated, progressive people and also the support of traditional Labour voters in it's heartlands. That should be the main lesson Labour draws from their 2019 debacle (not just on Brexit but all matters)
-
Billy
"Branton. If you really want to talk about this, I'll talk all day. But you're going to need to have done your homework."
Funny how you've gone quiet then when confronted with evidence and fact-based logic, which contradicts your concocted theory, from someone who really has done their homework.
Still you wouldn't want to allow inconvenient facts to get in the way of your contrived polemic, eh Billy?
-
Branton.
Apologies for my late response. As you may well have noticed, I wasn't on here much last week. The final week of the FY is hellish, and with some family issues thrown on top, answering your post wasn't at the top of my priority list. Still, your post got a like from Hound, who does love to see his conviction that I'm a fraud and a hypocrite buttressed. So that's nice.
As for your 27 March post, I truly do not know where to start. You claim to have done your home work, but central to the entire argument you make are a fundamental error of analysis, and a re-writing of history. I'll explain them really carefully. Please consider this before you respond.
1) Analysis error.
You say that Lab lost 61 seats to the Tories with a national 13% loss of votes to the Tories (wrong number, but we all make mistakes, so no problem), while losing 16% to the LDs et al cost them no seats at all. And you conclude from that, that Labour wasn't existentially threatened by loss of support to the LDs. I don't think you quite understand that you are actually making my point for me, by pointing out that Labour's position by Dec 2019 WASN'T one of existential loss. But you're ignoring the counterfactual. Which is: what would have happened if Labour had gone into the Dec 2019 election with the losses to the LDs et al that they were suffering in September BEFORE they adopted REF2 as their policy.
The problem then wouldn't have been a loss of seats to the LDs. That's a fundamental error that you make. The problem really would have been how many seats would they have lost to the Tories, because of the anti-Tory vote being split between Lab and the other anti-Hard Brexit parties?
We cannot know this latter number for certain, but we can make a decent estimate of it. That can be done by using the 18Sept percentages above, and applying them to the votes of each seat in the 2017 Election.
I've run those numbers. They say that, of the 262 seats Labour had before the 2019 Election, if Labour had lost 26% of its 2017 support to the LDs, 4% to the Tories, 6% to the Greens, 9% to BP, 2% to the SNP and 2% to PC (and, to be as fair and accurate as possible, added what that poll also says about Lab gaining 1% of 2017 Tory voters and 3% of 2017 LDs) these would have been the results in 2017 Labour seats.
Lab 96
Con 155
LD 5
SNP 5
That is based on the assumption of a uniform national swing in every constituency, which of course wouldn't have happened. But its the reasonable best we can do.
And THAT is what you appear not to have understood at all. Where Labour was in Sept 2019, was on the wrong side of a cliff edge, at which, under FPTP, a national party that drops below about 25% of national vote sees its number of seats collapse. If you don't get that, you're going to continue to fail to understand why the existential crisis for Lab in late Summer 2019 was the hemorrhaging of support to the strongly anti-Brexit parties.
2) Re-writing of history.
You say "I'm advocating Labour should have followed a compromise "soft" Brexit. Leave the EU and end FoM but otherwise stay closely tied to the EU. In the CU and tied to the SM. This would have maximised Labour's seats and even given them some small hope of victory (rather than guaranteed defeat)."
Err...what do you think Labour's policy was in early 2019? It was PRECISELY what you describe there. In the 27th March 2019 indicative votes, Labour's leadership policy stance was to support the following proposals:
1) Firm commitment to CU membership
2) 1 above, plus "close alignment with the single market and dynamic alignment on rights, standards and protections."
3) Membership of EFTA and EEA
The leadership DID also support a confirmatory referendum on a final Brexit deal, but Corbyn made it crystal clear that this wasn't what the Ref2 supporters wanted (a vote with the options being Brexit As Finally Agreed & Remain). Corbyn said on the day of the first round of indicative votes that Labour was supporting a Confirmatory Referendum purely "to keep the option of a public vote on the table in order to stop a disastrous no deal or May’s unacceptable deal”.
Labour WAS doing exactly what you say they should have done.
The result? Well you've seen it in my previous posts. A historically unprecedented loss of support, the vast majority to more stridently Ref2 parties.
You say "There was a mood for compromise in the country - you've provided the evidence re high support for the EEA option."
That was 15 months earlier than the 2019 GE. By March 2019, opinions had polarised. May had been dragged by the Far Right into stridently postulating a No Deal Brexit. The ERG, Johnson, Farage, Baker et al were actively pushing No Deal as a positive outcome by Spring 2019. Since literally no-one had advocated that in 2016, that move had destroyed the mood of compromise. The other side equally hardened. If the Right was going to give the finger to comproimise, why shouldn't the centre-left? Why should Remain supporters grit their teeth and accept a soft-Brexit? Why not ask the people in a second vote if, given how things had evolved since 2016, they still wanted Brexit at all?
You don't believe me that the moment for compromise had passed? Then explain why Labour lost 5 million supporters to the LDs et al in the first half of 2019, when their official policy was precisely for a compromise soft Brexit? And explain how a soft compromise could have helped Labour regain the 3-9% of their previous supporters who had embraced Farage by Spring/Summer 2019. You REALLY want to claim that they were coming back to a Labour party that promised them a soft Brexit?
Here's it in a nutshell.
Johnson did a consummate job of exposing Labour to attack from both sides. He offered the Red Wall the red meat of being able to vent their hatred of Brussels and internationalism. And any attempt (ANY attempt) to try to win them back was inevitably going to lose far more support from the other wing of the Labour party. And, although I suspect you still won't accept it, the numbers are unarguable - by Summer 2019, the latter of those two threats was the existential one - the one that could have killed Labour as a national force.
Labour was never going to be in a position to win in Dec 2019, precisely because there was no policy that wouldn't lose one group or another. Labour, eventually, and correctly despite Corbyn's protestations, judged that the least damaging path was to let the Red Wallers have their emotional spasm, and to work on winning them back when they saw for themselves what a shower of shite they had voted for. History appears to be vindicating that approach. To idly say that Ref2 lost Labour the 2019 election is a facile error born of a lack of understanding of the vote numbers and the political context at the time.
By the way. Are you still sticking to the line that the EU officials who said "We did it! We made them a colony!" we being serious?
-
The moment Labour lost the 2019 election is captured here, when Keith went rogue at Labour Conference;
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1642486320604872705
Dennis Skinner could see Keith was throwing the red wall leave votes to the sea.
The loss of Labour red wall seats maps closely to leave voting constituencies;
https://twitter.com/TweetForTheMany/status/1643340637457068032/photo/1
Corbyn should have sacked Starmer, and he should have been expelled from Labour at the time.
The cost of not doing so is now clear;
https://youtu.be/mDaY6K5A2qI
-
So you just ignore the argument I put up there Albie. Have a go at making a case for how Labour was supposed to win in Dec 2019, given that it was at 23% in the polls before Starmer made that speech. And that the overwhelming majority of the support it had lost had gone to pro-Remain parties.
Go on. Have a go.
But you won't of course, because it is impossible. What you'll do is cling to what the Left does. Every time it fails, it scrats about for The Great Betrayal Myth to console itself that it was everybody else to blame.
You raise Skinner.
I assume you know Skinner voted for accepting a No Deal Brexit in the Indicative Votes? It was that sort of attitude from a hardcore of Bennite EU-phobes, including Corbyn if he could have been honest, that lost Labour 5 million supporters between Spring and Autumn 2019.
But you will, of course, blame Starmer.
-
By the way Albie. While you're at it defending the Great Betrayal Myth, you might want to take this into account in your argument.
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1132925015316488193?s=20
-
Ridiculous Ablie. 99% of the electorate (your everyday man / woman) in 2019 will have known nothing about Starmer’s speech there.
-
And conversely nc, a big percentage of the electorate now know little of what Starmer actually stands for, except that he is anti government.
-
And conversely nc, a big percentage of the electorate now know little of what Starmer actually stands for, except that he is anti government.
Starmer is a prosecutor, posing as a politician. He stands for nothing other than opposing the government. When he actually becomes the leader of the government God help us all.
-
And conversely nc, a big percentage of the electorate now know little of what Starmer actually stands for, except that he is anti government.
Starmer is a prosecutor, posing as a politician. He stands for nothing other than opposing the government. When he actually becomes the leader of the government God help us all.
Let me get this right.
When politicians have done nothing but be in politics all their lives, they know nothing of the world outside.
When a working class lad works his way up to the very top of his profession, THEN enters politics, he's useless because he isn't a real politician.
-
Just because a working-class lad works his way to the top of his profession doesn't make him a good Prime minister. Otherwise, people like Gary Lineker, for instance, would be putting themselves up.
-
BST,
I was not replying to your argument, as I think it is contrived.
You seem to think your views are what matters....they are not!
I was returning to the topic.
Your argument that Labour were unlikely to win is correct, given the media storm around the false anti semitism narrative, but that is not a valid reason to lobby for ref2 which could only deter support amongst leave voters. Consolidation of the voter base needed to avoid the division that ref2 entailed.
The position of the party should not be improvised on the hoof, which is what Starmer did as a clear undermining of the leadership.
Much of the rest of your long post is not relevant to the evolution of the political context.
As Branton points out, there is a considerable re-writing of history going on.
Mcdonnell was incorrect in the tweet you mention, as he was when he tried to bring the deplorable Alastair Campbell back into Labour. Do not take the opinion of one individual as a guide to the overall position of the party, as with the Starmer speech.
Nothing Starmer has done suggests he is on the side of socialists, or in support of trade unions, or in any way working class interests.
ncRover,
The Labour Conference speech was widely covered in the media at the time, and anyone watching the evening news would have been aware of this speech. The idea that 99% of people were not aware is simply unreasonable, and even if people were not fully connected with the issue, it is still part of the mood music.
Many take their cue from the way an issue is framed by the media, the so called "overton window". This is central to the way all political discussion is focussed on what counts, and what is disregarded.
-
BST,
I was not replying to your argument, as I think it is contrived.
You seem to think your views are what matters....they are not!
I was returning to the topic.
Your argument that Labour were unlikely to win is correct, given the media storm around the false anti semitism narrative, but that is not a valid reason to lobby for ref2 which could only deter support amongst leave voters. Consolidation of the voter base needed to avoid the division that ref2 entailed.
The position of the party should not be improvised on the hoof, which is what Starmer did as a clear undermining of the leadership.
Much of the rest of your long post is not relevant to the evolution of the political context.
As Branton points out, there is a considerable re-writing of history going on.
Mcdonnell was incorrect in the tweet you mention, as he was when he tried to bring the deplorable Alastair Campbell back into Labour. Do not take the opinion of one individual as a guide to the overall position of the party, as with the Starmer speech.
Nothing Starmer has done suggests he is on the side of socialists, or in support of trade unions, or in any way working class interests.
ncRover,
The Labour Conference speech was widely covered in the media at the time, and anyone watching the evening news would have been aware of this speech. The idea that 99% of people were not aware is simply unreasonable, and even if people were not fully connected with the issue, it is still part of the mood music.
Many take their cue from the way an issue is framed by the media, the so called "overton window". This is central to the way all political discussion is focussed on what counts, and what is disregarded.
Which part is contrived?
The fact that Labour were down to the low 20s in the polls before they adopted Ref2?
The fact that the vast majority of those who had deserted the party had gone to Remain-supporting parties?
The fact that more than half of those returned to support Labour in the weeks after they adopted the Ref2 policy?
See, I reckon you're not engaging with any of those demonstrable facts because you know that they contradict the bullshit that the Left want to be true.
And yes, I've heard this McDonnell criticism from others on the Left. He was a solid member of the Corbynite faction for years. He and Corbyn were inseparable for decades. But God forbid that he should ever criticise "The Leadership" (which was what exactly? The incontestable word of the Blessed Jeremy? Wasn't McDonnell his No2 and right hand man? Wasn't he an integral part of "The Leadership"?)
-
This from DDN pretty much sums up what we are looking at under a Starmer Labour government .
No doubt many will hide behind " better than the Tories " , " we've got to get rid of the Tories " blah blah blah .
Fair enough but be in no doubt what it is you are actually replacing the Tories with .
The Establishment have chosen Keith for you , let that one sink in .
https://youtu.be/mDaY6K5A2qI
-
This from DDN pretty much sums up what we are looking at under a Starmer Labour government .
No doubt many will hide behind " better than the Tories " , " we've got to get rid of the Tories " blah blah blah .
Fair enough but be in no doubt what it is you are actually replacing the Tories with .
The Establishment have chosen Keith for you , let that one sink in .
https://youtu.be/mDaY6K5A2qI
Just reading some of the early comments on that link tyke and one says that anyone who supported Corbyn would never vote for someone like Starmer.
Clearly that is untrue because there are plenty on this site who backed Corbyn and who have now binned him off and support the idea of Starmer as PM.
-
This from DDN pretty much sums up what we are looking at under a Starmer Labour government .
No doubt many will hide behind " better than the Tories " , " we've got to get rid of the Tories " blah blah blah .
Fair enough but be in no doubt what it is you are actually replacing the Tories with .
The Establishment have chosen Keith for you , let that one sink in .
https://youtu.be/mDaY6K5A2qI
Just reading some of the early comments on that link tyke and one says that anyone who supported Corbyn would never vote for someone like Starmer.
Clearly that is untrue because there are plenty on this site who backed Corbyn and who have now binned him off and support the idea of Starmer as PM.
Absolutely and I'd say some of us who seriously consider labour under Starmer wouldn't have gone anywhere near labour under Corbyn. Guess there's 2 sides to that.
-
Tyke,
Billy knows full well the background and intentions of Keith, it's been posted for him on here many times.
As a extreme centrist member, his goal is to spread misinformation in support of his tribe.
I posted the Double Down video above, but he ignores it because it doesn't suit.
The post about the red wall is a classic example.
"The fact that the vast majority of those who had deserted the party had gone to Remain-supporting parties?
The fact that more than half of those returned to support Labour in the weeks after they adopted the Ref2 policy?"
First up, fail to recognise that red wall Labour votes had been falling under New Labour.
Then do not acknowledge the rise in Labour votes under Corbyn, pulling back the Labour vote by 4 million from the dog days of Prudence Broon to 2017.
https://twitter.com/Desuetudine/status/1643566533686226947/photo/1
After that, don't consider how those votes might lie in terms of constituencies.
As shown the loss of Labour red wall seats maps closely to leave voting constituencies;
https://twitter.com/TweetForTheMany/status/1643340637457068032/photo/1
Then make the big leap to argue against the data, that provoking annoyed leave voters by supporting ref2, and pretend it was good politics.
Obscure the fact that it was suicidal in the red wall by saying it was supported by many remainiacs, so it was OK.
This is the nature of doublethink and distraction, tools of the obfuscation trade.
I speak as a remain voter, by the way!
-
Albie
We've been through this SO many times. I say "we". I mean you've repeated that old canard about Corbyn being such a winner for losing an election with a high vote. And I've pointed out the bleeding obvious context that you insist on ignoring.
I'll point it out again. I don't doubt you'll ignore it again.
The 2010 election was a genuinely three-day election. The LDs, who had spent a generation positioning themselves as a repository for people pissed off with normal politics, took advantage of the Global (clue in the name) Financial Crash to get their largest number of votes ever. 7 million.
Even 2015, by which time the LDs had self-immolated, saw UKIP win 4 million votes.
The 2017 election, the one you laud Corbyn over, was the first one in 50 years that was a genuine 2 party election. Yes Corbyn built up the Labour vote. But it would have taken some effort not to do, given the loss of a third option.
And here the bit that the adherents of the Church of the Blessed Jeremy never engage on.
It's widely accepted that Theresa May's performance in 2017 was the worst in history by a sitting PM. She could barely get her mouth to function when asked a question. But even SHE presided over a result that saw the Tories win 3 million more votes than in 2010?
Why?
Because it was only a two party election, duh!
Corbyn's performance by 2019 by the way, was a political miracle. He presided over the resurrection of the battered corpse of the LDs. His policies saw something like 3.5million of the people who voted Labour in 2017 desert to the LDs by Sept 2019, together with another 1.5 million to the Greens, PC and SNP.
But of course, it was Starmer that lost Labour the 2019 election...
-
And once again, I'll ask you. What would have been the result in Dec 2019 had Labour not clawed back half those 5million votes that Corbyn lost in the first half of 2019?
I KNOW you won't answer because there is no answer other than the one your blind faith refuses to accept.
-
Ok then Albie, let’s say 80% weren’t aware of it. And I highly doubt it changed the mind of many of that remaining 20%. The majority of people are not heavily invested in politics on Twitter and even more are not in a left wing echo chamber. The main issue for many middle of the road voters were the hard left policies of Corbyn.
If you are on the side of Skinner over Starmer here I’m going to assume you voted Leave in 2016?
-
Dread to think how Corbyn would be handling Ukraine right now.
We’d have no nuclear deterrent and he’d be trying to engage in “dialogue” with Putin.
-
Dread to think how Corbyn would be handling Ukraine right now.
We’d have no nuclear deterrent and he’d be trying to engage in “dialogue” with Putin.
His side-kick Diane Abbott would have sorted it.
-
And you think that could possibly have been any worse than having Truss as FS and PM in this war?
-
Or Dom can't it wait I'm at the beach Raaaab
-
We’re talking about Corbyn here.
But yes, none of the mentioned names have/ would put our national security at such a risk as JC would have done.
Didn’t he want NATO disbanded?
-
He would have gone the same way as chamberlain
-
And you think that could possibly have been any worse than having Truss as FS and PM in this war?
I think NOTHING could possibly have been any worse than having Corbyn & Abbott in this war.
-
And you think that could possibly have been any worse than having Truss as FS and PM in this war?
I think NOTHING could possibly have been any worse than having Corbyn & Abbott in this war.
i have often wondered when the pair were in bed together which one would take the right side
-
Corbyn said that the UN and the west should have been tougher on putin earlier on, not like johnson giving the oligarchs every facility and the keys to londongrad
-
meanwhile back in moscow before the vote, why are we giving the british all this money boss ...... idiot, were helping them with the brexit decision ......... but why are financing the tories .......... idiot, so we can get our man to the top ............... any more questions? no boss.
-
I said at the time that the 2019 election was the very worst choice of PM in history.
One who is a lifelong adherent to the intellectually vacuous idea that the West is the Great Evil and therefore Russia as an enemy of the West is the lesser evil.
The other leading a party awash with Russian money, and in the pocket of an ex-KGB colonel.
What I didn't take into account was that the winner would then be replaced by a PM unable to form coherent thoughts.
As for Corbyn's response to Ukraine, had he won the 2019 election, he would have had two choices: support Ukraine or be booted out by a party that overwhelmingly supported Ukraine.
-
meanwhile back in moscow before the vote, why are we giving the british all this money boss ...... idiot, were helping them with the brexit decision ......... but why are financing the tories .......... idiot, so we can get our man to the top ............... any more questions? no boss.
you are too young to know anything about Harold Wilson
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-49939123
-
Do you mean the Harold "original milk snatcher" Wilson?
-
And once again, I'll ask you. What would have been the result in Dec 2019 had Labour not clawed back half those 5million votes that Corbyn lost in the first half of 2019?
I KNOW you won't answer because there is no answer other than the one your blind faith refuses to accept.
BST,
On the contrary, the point has been answered 3 times now.
Do you actually read links before posting?
Labour lost 2,582,853 votes between 2017 and 2019 GE. This on a lower turnout of 67.3%, down from 68.7%.
This came after a prolonged fraudulent campaign about alleged anti-semitism, now discredited.
https://twitter.com/Desuetudine/status/1643566533686226947
The figure of 5 million you give is incorrect, twice the true figure so way off the mark.
You have no evidence of 5 million lost voters, it is simply speculation. A convenient fiction to support your thin argument.
If you are taking that from polling, there is no read through from polls to actual voting on a long time frame above about 3 months before a GE.
Any such correlation is in no way predictive, and no-one experienced in polling would claim otherwise. A poll is not a data point.
The only benchmark is at a GE, not a loose intention before the fact.
It is clear that Labour lost the red wall seats on the basis of ref2. Starmer is responsible (with others) for that loss of support.
Some seats would have been lost anyway, as the trend away from Labour in the red wall was already established.
LD votes are not really relevant in the red wall, other than to deprive the main parties. If they have no realistic chance, choosing to protest vote LD is about as sensible as pissing down your own leg.
I am not saying that the overall vote number is the only measure. It needs to be set alongside retention of sufficient votes in key seats, and ensuring a high turnout of support.
This is obvious from the numbers of seats changing hands.
The value of voter support in red wall marginals is much higher than other constituencies, because the tipping point is close to hand, so holding that vote and ensuring turnout is key.
Retaining the support of red wall leave voters was of greater strategic importance than pandering to remainiacs.
You seem to be saying that the overall numbers voting for Labour net out higher because of the ref2 position.
There is no data to support that, and with the electoral system we have, a smaller number of defections in marginal seats is of greater relevance than increased support in safe seats.
All of which is clear and well understood, except by those who wish to rewrite history.
Now, to the real point.
Does voting Labour do anything to promote socialism, improve trade union support, and rebuild the public sector?
What is the reward for working class people in backing Keith?
What is your view of the Doubledown news video posted up the thread by me and then Tyke?
-
Ok then Albie, let’s say 80% weren’t aware of it. And I highly doubt it changed the mind of many of that remaining 20%. The majority of people are not heavily invested in politics on Twitter and even more are not in a left wing echo chamber. The main issue for many middle of the road voters were the hard left policies of Corbyn.
If you are on the side of Skinner over Starmer here I’m going to assume you voted Leave in 2016?
ncRover,
It is not about twitter or left wing politics.
The story was the big issue on the national news at the time, and covered in all the papers...it was a big deal.
The policies in the 2019 Labour manifesto are very well received, as all the data we have shows.
The Labour right and the media drove a wedge between Corbyn as an individual, and the policy platform.
I have already said I voted remain.
That does not mean I would support ref2, because a decision had been made, albeit the wrong one as is now clear from the economic losses.
-
Albie
When you take the attitude "I will ignore ALL evidence that contradicts what I want to be true" you are acting like a relgious zealot, not a grown up taking part in a rational debate.
The fact is that the opinion polls in Sept 2019 showed Labour had lost 5 million supporters to Remain parties. You can claim that's meaningless if you wish, but then you are choosing to ignore evidence.
A second fact is that, according to consistent poll data, Labour had lost more than 10% of its 2017 support to Hard Brexit supporting parties by that time. BEFORE that speech of Starmer's which you claim lost Labour the election.
A third fact is that, by December 2019, Labour had regained half the lost support to the Remain parties.
A fourth fact is that it had also regained a chunk of support lost to the hard Brexit parties.
Run it by me again how Starmer's speech lost Labour the election. And while you're at it, remind me how, precisely, Labour were supposed to win back the 1.25million 2017 supporters who had switched to supporting Farage's party. No blather and dissembling. Just explain those points simply and clearly.
-
When you take the attitude "I will ignore ALL evidence that contradicts what I want to be true" you are acting like a relgious zealot, not a grown up taking part in a rational debate.
OMFG LOL!! The irony! Incredible how the most self-certain can be those most lacking in self-awareness!!!
Billy this is a matter of historical record. Rather than assessing the evidence broadly and then coming to a conclusion with some degree of certainty your approach is to start with a certain conclusion and then: seek narrow confirmatory evidence; assess said evidence in a partisan manner; summarily dismiss or ignore evidence that contradicts your conclusion; and where no evidence fits your narrative present mere conjecture as fact.
Your posts on this subject read like something from the pen of Edward Lear just without the rhyming couplets.
1) Let's first take your hilarious assertion that Labour adopted Ref2 through hard-headed, long-term strategic thinking. This little outburst gives lie to that: -
"If the Right was going to give the finger to compromise, why shouldn't the centre-left? Why should Remain supporters grit their teeth and accept a soft-Brexit?"
Emotion was behind the Ref2 policy. Specifically childish, petulant anger. Nobody thinking rationally would have made such an utterly stupid decision.
To answer your questions. Tory Leavers didn't need to compromise because they won the referendum and even more importantly they won it by a landslide on a Parliamentary constituency basis.
This made the UK leaving the EU a fait accompli. Campaigning to overturn this decision was therefore political suicide and doomed to abject failure.
2) "The moment for compromise had passed" What?? The 2019 GE was the only opportunity the electorate would ever get to opt for compromise. It was the Labour Party that killed that opportunity.
How the UK left the EU was not decided. The Tories put forward their version which tallied with what Leave campaigned on in 2016. Labour, through sheer petulance, decided instead to re-run a doomed Remain (vs Leave) campaign
It always amuses me how Labour and it's supporters criticise the Tory "Hard" Brexit when it was the Labour Party in 2019 who killed dead any opportunity the population had to opt for a compromise Brexit.
3) "Opinions had polarised" Perhaps in Westminster. But there was logically no reason why so amongst the electorate esp if Labour adopted "soft" Brexit and so transformed the national argument.
What your EEA study actually shows was (not a massive shift to Remain or indeed Leave) but the simple truth that the electorate was split 3 ways on Brexit (Ardent Europhiles; Ardent Brexiteers; Those in the middle). This was true in Jun-16, at the time of the poll and in Dec-19.
"A study around that time indicated that almost 70% of the population wanted Brexit cancelled or for us to join the EEA (the latter around twice as popular as the former)"
Simple Maths here. Approx half of 2016s 48% Remainers therefore were in favour of compromise as a first choice. (Logically under FPTP you'd expect more to be willing to compromise than allow a Tory Brexit - at a constituency or national level see point 6).
Therefore a "Soft" Brexit policy would have been at least as successful at attracting Remain votes as Ref2 and likely more so.
4) "miraculously won back all the Red Wall voters" Again how on Earth can winning back people who have voted Labour all their lives require a miracle?!
Red Wall Leavers switched to Tories/Farage not because they'd suddenly lurched to the Right but because of Brexit - largely the ending of FoM. Promising to leave the EU and end FoM would have won back a significant % of Red Wall votes and the respective seats otherwise lost due to Ref2
5) "Labour party policy was soft Brexit pre Sep-19" That's not how it was viewed outwardly by the electorate. Labour on Brexit was split, confused, contradictory, often strangely silent and uncertain.
There was no unified national campaign arguing for a soft Brexit or anything else for that matter. Take their "ref on a deal" policy - which simultaneously ticked off Leavers, Remainers and those in the middle seeking certainty and suffering Brexit fatigue.
Taking the instructions on the indicative votes (which on SM were widely ignored inc by Starmer and other seniors) as evidence of a firm, solid, well-publicised, unified Labour policy on Brexit is really re-writing history.
6) I did not say Labour would only lose seats to the LDs through a soft Brexit approach - please consider my arguments more carefully before misrepresenting me.
I was pointing out that Remain areas consisted of many Labour safe seats (versus many Lab/Con marginals in Leave areas) where LD often have little presence which is important because.....
…...your assertion that Labour would have lost several previously safe seats to the Tories on a split Left vote shows a misunderstanding of how FPTP works. People are forced to vote for the least worst option i.e. I'd prefer Remain but LD can't win here so best vote Labour to stop a Tory Brexit.
7) “Labour was never going to be in a position to win in Dec 2019” I agree their chances were slim.
But their chances went from slim to zero with Ref2 being announced.
In 2019, like in 2017, Labour had potentially popular policies wheras the Tories had nothing. In 2017 Labour's vote share shot up on the back of this. Any such uplift happening in 2019 was killed stone dead by Ref2 turning the election into Leave v Remain.
Also often it's the Government which loses a GE rather than the opposition winning it.
It's amazing the foresight you attribute to Labour deciding on Ref2 re “let the Red Wall go temporarily, then win it back when Red Wall voters realise what a shower they had elected.” But also that they had the foresight to realise there would be no slip from Johnson et al in the 3 months up to the GE which may have swung the vote. Amazing!
-
Branton.
Your point 1
The bit in quotation marks you cite from me was a statement about what the ELECTORATE was thinking, not the Labour party.
2) The tide had clearly turned against compromise. Because, once again, patiently and with a big deep breath, there was no possibility of a Brexit that satisfied one side wanting an end to FoM, and the other wanting something between rejection of Brexit and an EEA membership that word have required FoM. It was that latter that was the preferred choice of a large majority of the population in 2018, but that was totally off the agenda by early 2019. Labour had a clear and unequivocal policy in winter/spring 2019 of a "compromise" that meant no EEA membership and no FoM. It lost them support by the million to Remain supporting parties! That's the point you will not engage with. That answers your point 3. It did not attract any Red Wall voters. And recall, until May 2019, by which time the loss of support had happened, no-one of any note in Labour was talking about a Ref2 in any context other than to stop a No Deal mess. That answers your point 4.
Your point 5 is factually incorrect. Shoe me evidence of Starmer going against the Labour line in the IVs or withdraw it. And before you accuse me of re-writing history again, do your homework.
6) You're in Dreamland if you honestly think people always vote rationally to get the least bad outcome. Look at how many left leaning people voted LD in 2010 and opened the gates for theist rightwing economic policies since the 1930s. You reckon they thought the consequences through?
7) Talk me through once again what Labour was supposed to do in Sept 2019.
23% in the polls.
13% of its 2017 support now supporting parties that were advocating No Deal Brexit as a fine (in some cases, preferred) outcome.
39% of its previous support now backing parties that wanted to reverse Brexit.
On the bare numbers, Labour facing the possibility of winning fewer than 100 seats.
People like me, a lifetime member other than a few years under Blair, actively considering, if the slide in support continued, whether the LDs were going to reach the tipping point where voting for them didn't give a safe Lab seat to the Tories, but actually won it for the LDs.
Go on. Tell me how you square that circle.
-
BST,
Well, your post 164 is up there with the great drivelling contributions to this discussion.
On the contrary, to your belief, the point you raise has been answered many times now.
Do you actually read links before posting?
Labour lost 2,582,853 votes between 2017 and 2019 GE. This on a lower turnout of 67.3%, down from 68.7%.
This came after a prolonged fraudulent campaign about alleged anti-semitism, now discredited.
https://twitter.com/Desuetudine/status/1643566533686226947
The figure of 5 million you give is incorrect, twice the true figure so way off the mark.
You have no evidence of 5 million lost voters, it is simply speculation. A convenient fiction to support your thin argument.
If you are taking that from polling, there is no read through from polls to actual voting on a long time frame above about 3 months before a GE.
Any such correlation is in no way predictive, and no-one experienced in polling would claim otherwise. A poll is not a data point.
The only benchmark is at a GE, not a loose intention before the fact.
It is clear that Labour lost the red wall seats on the basis of ref2. Starmer is responsible (with others) for that loss of support.
Some seats would have been lost anyway, as the trend away from Labour in the red wall was already established.
LD votes are not really relevant in the red wall, other than to deprive the main parties. If they have no realistic chance, choosing to protest vote LD is about as sensible as pissing down your own leg.
I am not saying that the overall vote number is the only measure. It needs to be set alongside retention of sufficient votes in key seats, and ensuring a high turnout of support.
This is obvious from the numbers of seats changing hands.
The value of voter support in red wall marginals is much higher than other constituencies, because the tipping point is close to hand, so holding that vote and ensuring turnout is key.
Retaining the support of red wall leave voters was of greater strategic importance than pandering to remainiacs.
You seem to be saying that the overall numbers voting for Labour net out higher because of the ref2 position.
There is no data to support that, and with the electoral system we have, a smaller number of defections in marginal seats is of greater relevance than increased support in safe seats.
All of which is clear and well understood, except by those who wish to rewrite history.
Now, to the real point.
Does voting Labour do anything to promote socialism, improve trade union support, and rebuild the public sector?
What is the reward for working class people in backing Keith?
What is your view of the Doubledown news video posted up the thread by me and then Tyke?
-
Albie.
I used to have a lot of respect for your arguments, even when I strongly disagreed with you.
These days, you've gone entirely off the rails.
Ignoring polling data because there wasn't an election that day is just stupid.
A poll is a measure of support at the time that it is taken. Consistently, polling throughout Sumner 2019 showed that 5 million 2017 Labour voters had switched support to Remain supporting parties.
You don't like that data, so you totally ignore it.
You say, in effect, "the majority of Remain supporters who voted Labour in 2017 also voted Labour in 2019. Therefore they were always going to vote Labour in 2019. And I will ignore the copious evidence that a very large number of them were telling pollsters they wouldn't vote Labour, before the Ref2 policy was adopted."
Similarly, you are saying. "Labour adopted a Ref2 policy and then lost Red Wall seats. Therefore they lost Red Wall seats BECAUSE of the Ref2 policy. That's what is called a "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" mistake. Your logic totally ignores the fact that copious polling evidence suggests those Red Wall voters who deserted Labour had chosen to do so months before Starmer's speech and the Ref2 policy.
I KNOW you want to ignore the polling data, because it directly contradicts what you want to be true. That's your prerogative. But it is literally wilful ignorance.
-
The value of voter support in red wall marginals is much higher than other constituencies, because the tipping point is close to hand, so holding that vote and ensuring turnout is key.
Retaining the support of red wall leave voters was of greater strategic importance than pandering to remainiacs.
Spot on.
-
BST,
A poll is not a data point, period.
With experience in the sector, you would know that this would always be stressed to interested parties.
I have explained some of the caveats to be considered, but you insist on squeezing the information for something that it cannot tell you.
No-one can have a discussion with you if you continue to base your case on extrapolating uncertainty.
In fairness, you are not alone in this mistake.
The media continually misrepresent poll outcomes as indicative of something in the future, from a source which they does not accurately measure in the first instance.
So by all means keep on cherry picking, but do not expect to be taken seriously!
-
So you are determined to stick to this belief that we know nothing about electoral support except on Election day?
-
I have not said that, as you well know.
I am saying that their is no reliable predictive capability from mid term polling, using different methodologies and sample sizes, and built for different reasons.
If you think that there is, you are away with the unicorns and fairies.
-
Albie
You haven't explicitly said that. But you have, absolutely and determinedly refused to engage with the evidence from the polls.
The evidence that Labour had lost 5 million supporters to the LDs, Greens SNP and PC between New Year and midsummer 2019.
You point blank refuse to address that. Instead, you lecture me on something I already know - that polls are not a guarantee of what will happen in the future.
What you totally refuse to engage on is that we have no information other than polls to assess what may happen at a subsequent election in the absence of changes of circumstance.
By refusing to engage with that, you are doing what I said a few posts up - saying people who voted Labour in 2019 were always going to vote Labour and so didn't need to be won over.
-
Branton.
Your point 5 is factually incorrect. Show me evidence of Starmer going against the Labour line in the IVs or withdraw it. And before you accuse me of re-writing history again, do your homework.
You "Labour had a clear and unequivocal policy in winter/spring 2019 of a "compromise" that meant no EEA membership and no FoM."
IV 1/4/19 Keir Starmer voted For Common Market 2.0: Remaining in the European single market and seeking a temporary customs union with the EU www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47779783
Remaining in the Single Market would necessarily involve retaining FoM.
That evidence enough for you? Care to apologies?
And before you accuse me of re-writing history or being factually incorrect again, do your homework. :P
-
Yep hand up. I'd forgotten about the CM 2.0 proposal. Mistake by me.
It's also a mistake by you to claim that Starmer went against Labour policy on this. Corbyn wrote to all Labour MPs asking them to support this motion, and voted for it himself. As did the whole Labour leadership.
This does reinforce my main thrust, (even though I admit I was wrong to claim Labour were clearly against FoM)
What the leadership actually did was to refuse to answer whether they were for or against FoM at that time, when pressed.
And for a very good political reason - because there was no coherent answer that could prevent the loss of one section of Labour support or another.
And as I've said, the mood in the electorate was no longer for compromise. Even though Labour supported that motion, they still suffered a catastrophic loss of support to the more strongly pro-Remain parties in the next few months. Because among those people, the possibility of Ref2 was now active. Labour didn't start to regain those 5 million lost supporters until they finally faced reality and embraced Ref2.
I'll say again. What possible policy could Labour have embraced in 2019 that would have retained those increasingly militant pro-Ref2 voters AND retained the Red Wallers who by mid-2019 were embracing No Deal?
There wasn't one. And by September 2019, Labour had lost the support of BOTH groups, and we're facing electoral meltdown.
The argument that Albie makes that Starmer's conference speech lost Labour the election is facile nonsense.
-
Dread to think how Corbyn would be handling Ukraine right now.
We’d have no nuclear deterrent and he’d be trying to engage in “dialogue” with Putin.
Churchill won WW2 by forming a pact with Stalin. Or to be more historically accurate - Stalin won WW2 by forming a pact with Churchill & Roosevelt.
All wars end in dialogue. The fighting bit gets you there.
-
I apologise, but …
-
Dread to think how Corbyn would be handling Ukraine right now.
We’d have no nuclear deterrent and he’d be trying to engage in “dialogue” with Putin.
Churchill won WW2 by forming a pact with Stalin. Or to be more historically accurate - Stalin won WW2 by forming a pact with Churchill & Roosevelt.
All wars end in dialogue. The fighting bit gets you there.
But isn’t nc’s point that we would have nothing to fight with, therefore no need for dialogue?
-
Billy
I forgot Corbyn's intervention on CM 2.0. My error. Happy to withdraw my comment on Starmer.
However that was only an aside. The main thrust of my argument - that pre Ref2 in 2019 Labour on Brexit were split, confused, contradictory - is proven correct.
Your assertion that I was 're-writing history' because Labour had adopted and successfully communicated a soft Brexit without FoM policy pre Sep-19 as I was proposing is proven false.
You've gone from clear and unambiguously in favour of ending FoM; to refusing to commit either way on FoM; via the majority of Labour MPs voting in favour of retaining FoM.
And you can substitute SM for FoM in the above sentence as the 2 go hand in hand. Clear and unambiguous on Brexit?? No confused and contradictory clearly.
And therefore Labour lost support from Remainers, Leavers and those in between who just wanted certainty.
Your whole argument is underpinned on Labour having a clear soft Brexit policy pre Sep-19 and the reaction to that policy showing a hardening of position and an unwillingness to compromise amongst the electorate.
But Labour provably didn't have a clear policy on Brexit. The central pillar to your argument is fatally undermined. Your self-certain opinion is based on mere conjecture that views had hardened and significantly shifted across the country. It is not based on evidence.
Actual evidence suggests Red Wall Leavers would have returned to Labour with a 'respect the referendum and end FoM' policy - because they voted for Labour in 2017 when they explicitly promised that.
Actual evidence (which you kindly provided) suggests around half of Remain voters wanted a compromise as a first choice. Before taking into account those who would accept a compromise if proposed as the only viable alternative to a Tory Brexit (no not everyone always votes rationally to get the least bad outcome under FPTP but that's not what I was arguing - just that many would have done).
Therefore the evidence, as opposed to baseless conjecture, suggests Labour would have almost certainly won more votes and certainly won more seats (remembering the Red Wall Leaver votes were proportionally more valuable in terms of gaining MPs) by adopting a compromise position rather than Ref2.
-
Branton
You're still not engaging on the 2 very central parts of my argument.
The Red Wall Brexit voters had, in large numbers by early-mid 2019, thrown their support to a party that was actively pushing for a No Deal Brexit.
Do you forget the Question Times up North when someone would express support for WTO rules and the place would explode in applause? (Anecdotal, obviously, but it chimes with the polling data.)
The Red Wall Brexiters weren't, by and large, looking for a compromise soft Brexit. They wanted Brexit red in tooth and claw. Because that's what Brexit was in the post-Industrial heartland. It wasn't some abstract argument about what would be the best balance of sovereignty and economics. It was about taking back control. Shoving it to the EU-loving Elite.
So I'll ask again.
How could Labour give them a raw enough Brexit to satisfy that need, without losing the EU-supporting other 3/4s of its national support?
Especially in an environment where the LDs, Greens and Nats were offering to try to overturn Brexit altogether?
Your proposed middle way didn't exist. Couldn't exist it the fervid atmosphere of 2019.
-
Billy
Your problem is because you're a political animal with ideological, self-certain views you think that everyone else is the same. You're being absolutist.
The only evidence you can provide is from the reaction of a small number of strongly politically minded individuals who you cannot even prove were Labour voters in 2017. Anecdotal, unrepresentative, irrelevant.
It does not chime with polling data as I've proved in my last post. Red Wall Leave voters abandoned Labour because Labour abandoned it's 'respect the referendum/end FoM' in early 2019 not because of a push for No Deal which came later
The Rights pushing of No Deal is not proof that these voters had hardened on Brexit, or that their reasons for supporting Leave had somehow changed.
It is only proof that they would have preferred No Deal to Remain which is hardly surprising given they voted Leave in the first place despite warnings of No Deal being a possibility.
No not all Red Wall Leavers were fixated on ending FoM (I'm a case in point), but many were, it is the key reason the Leave vote was higher in these areas - not a desire to shove it to the EU elite as you allege
The only evidence we have on whether Red Wall Leavers would have accepted said compromise comes from how they all voted in 2017. Enough said.
Also not all of the Remainer 3/4s of Labour's support were absolutists in terms of Brexit either. Not even close to all. We've already proved that roughly half preferred compromise only a year or so previously.
You're also copying and pasting the 'fervid' atmosphere within political circles and applying it to the whole electorate. Again this is conjecture. There is no evidence for this.
There is no evidence whatsoever for your position. None. The evidence is all in my favour.
Now absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence granted. And so you're entitled to your opinion but forgive me for my continued dismissal of it until you do provide some actual real evidence to convince me otherwise.
Oh and just a reminder as overarching evidence: Labour's worst electoral performance in nearly 100 years having been a hair's breath from being in office 2.5 years earlier with the same leadership and similar policies other than on Brexit.
-
The AlJazeera documentary (see first page of this thread) has just won an international award for investigative journalism;
https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1648710369043464196?cxt=HHwWiIC2xY3WsuEtAAAA
Good to see the work receive recognition in the international community, even if in the UK people are pretending that they don't know about it.
-
An international award you say? Impressive and authoritative. I mean, the awards' Twitter feed has (checks notes) nearly 1,200 followers!
-
BST,
WTF.....what a weird post.
Since when have awards for excellence been dependent upon twitter followers?
The voices in your head are singing again.
"The hierarchy" dealt with the hierarchy of racism identified in the Forde Report, surely central to any consideration of progress towards equality and fairness.
https://tvfilm.newyorkfestivals.com/Winners/WinnerDetailsNew/a05f30e8-9993-4b87-982a-e7d3019674be
Instead of trying to deflect from the issue, better to reply to the questions you were asked.
Here they are again:
1) Does voting Labour do anything to promote socialism, improve trade union support, and rebuild the public sector?
2) What is the reward for working class people in backing Keith?
3) What is your view of the Doubledown news video posted up the thread by me and then Tyke?
and
4) You can add how Keith and Co will address climate change.
Rachel Reeves was on Kuennsberg saying that carbon capture and storage was the key.
This has caused some amusement and consternation in the energy, economics and carbon communities.
-
An international award you say? Impressive and authoritative. I mean, the awards' Twitter feed has (checks notes) nearly 1,200 followers!
Someone suffering too many first world issues?
-
Albie.
I'm sorry, I thought my point was so obvious it could be couched in mild sarcasm. Clearly not.
My point was that your use of the term "international" seemed designed to give tan air of authority. "The international community" was the term you used, when a more accurate term would have been "a very small, and apparently not massively influential international group
-
Oh dear DiANE ABBOTT puts her foot in it and loses the Labour whip after racist Diane Abbott has Labour whip suspended after 'offensive' comments on racism https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-23/diane-abbott-has-labour-whip-suspended-after-comments-after-racism-letter?utm_source=NewsApp&utm_medium=SocialShare
-
Quite right, she's talking nonsense and they won't want that to reflect on the party as a whole, very sensible.
-
Oh dear DiANE ABBOTT puts her foot in it and loses the Labour whip after racist Diane Abbott has Labour whip suspended after 'offensive' comments on racism https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-23/diane-abbott-has-labour-whip-suspended-after-comments-after-racism-letter?utm_source=NewsApp&utm_medium=SocialShare
Shame the government don't act in the.same manner.
-
Oh dear DiANE ABBOTT puts her foot in it and loses the Labour whip after racist Diane Abbott has Labour whip suspended after 'offensive' comments on racism https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-23/diane-abbott-has-labour-whip-suspended-after-comments-after-racism-letter?utm_source=NewsApp&utm_medium=SocialShare
Shame the government don't act in the.same manner.
so they tolerate anti Jewish remarks give me an example ?
-
This wasn’t a spur of the moment comment, it was a thought through, pre planned letter.
The ‘first draft’ nonsense doesn’t wash either. You redraft pieces to make subtle changes, not to completely change your mind about whether jews suffer from racism.
-
Oh dear DiANE ABBOTT puts her foot in it and loses the Labour whip after racist Diane Abbott has Labour whip suspended after 'offensive' comments on racism https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-23/diane-abbott-has-labour-whip-suspended-after-comments-after-racism-letter?utm_source=NewsApp&utm_medium=SocialShare
Shame the government don't act in the.same manner.
so they tolerate anti Jewish remarks give me an example ?
No, but they certainly tolerate anti-Muslim prejudice. What response has there been from the Tory party to the disgraceful lies by the Home Secretary about grooming gangs?
None whatsoever.
On Abbot, I hesitate to criticise her, as a middle aged white man who has never had to deal with the sort of vile, racist vitriol that she's had to live with.
But her words come from a very bad ideology that sets a hierarchy of racism.
It's not just something that radicals with an Afro-Caribbean heritage do. I once wrote a review of a Primo Levi book, and the comments section seconded into a blazing row between a Native American and a Jewish contributor about whether their groups' Holocausts were the greatest crime against humanity in history.
It's a particular form of division, and I hate the politics of division. Abbot has every right to shout loudly about racism, but what she's done here is unacceptable and Labour is 100% right to suspend her.
-
Diane Abbott is a racist. Whatever else you think is your problem.
-
Oh dear DiANE ABBOTT puts her foot in it and loses the Labour whip after racist Diane Abbott has Labour whip suspended after 'offensive' comments on racism https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-23/diane-abbott-has-labour-whip-suspended-after-comments-after-racism-letter?utm_source=NewsApp&utm_medium=SocialShare
Shame the government don't act in the.same manner.
so they tolerate anti Jewish remarks give me an example ?
You very cleverly interpreted my post to your advantage. My point was that she was immediately punished by the Labour party hierarchy. Not something that ever happens with Conservative party. Raab being a classic example. Oh and yes I think Abbott is racist but she is also stupid and in my opinion is a liability to the party. Kier Starmer will be secretly pleased.
-
Keith now opposed to changing the voting system to PR:
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/
He was in favour of change when standing for the leadership.
Just another pledge, I guess!
-
Keith now opposed to changing the voting system to PR:
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/
He was in favour of change when standing for the leadership.
Just another pledge, I guess!
There's a fair few videos of him saying one thing one day, another the next. It's not a great look, what does he stand for?
Of course many labour voters said it about Boris Johnson, one assumes they'll think the same on Starmer. Is he a liar too?
-
Starmer doesn't lie, he just makes mistakes!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Re-nationalisation as well. He's reneged on that
-
Re-nationalisation as well. He's reneged on that
The Labour Party Video Keith doesn't want you to see .
https://youtu.be/J5JXO8pHwgo
-
Billy, give us a sign.
-
Even Owen Jones of the Guardian is exasperated with Keith's epic fail on the PR front;
https://youtu.be/e7QpzCkq5sU
The Double Down video sums up the vacuum at the heart of UK politics.
No real difference on policy between the parties, only the Greens with any principles.
-
Interesting interview with Prof Sikka on the ludicrous reasons given by Keith and Reeves for not supporting public ownership;
https://youtu.be/3VVjZCbQ24Q
So the people who created the problems we have in water, rail and the rest are going to get us out of the mess are they?
Saddle up the unicorns!
-
Keith now opposed to changing the voting system to PR:
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/
He was in favour of change when standing for the leadership.
Just another pledge, I guess!
Very disappointed in this!!
-
Another pledge discarded by Keith today, this time on tuition fees.
Here are his promises standing for the leadership, still on his site;
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
One by one, knocking them down to reverse intentions.
Channelling his inner Nick Clegg, alienating younger voters at one fell swoop.
Is his ambition to totally wreck the Labour Party?
-
Keith now opposed to changing the voting system to PR:
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/
He was in favour of change when standing for the leadership.
Just another pledge, I guess!
Very disappointed in this!!
So will millions of the electorate who vote Labour at the next election unfortunately Branton .
If people think Corbyn destroyed the Labour Party they haven't seen anything yet .
I'll predict a Keith Labour government will be its last under its present guise .
-
It takes a really bad leader to make a mess of a 20 point lead in the polls, against a crap government who continually score own goals; but I'm honestly starting to think this guy could do it, with all the pledges he's reneging on.
I still think the Tories will get slaughtered on Thursday in the locals, but the GE is a long way off, and there's still time for Keith to turn what seemed like a certain Labour landslide into hung parliament territory.
-
Not many defending Starmer on this thread.
-
Keith has now come out as a fully fledged Tory;
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576
Honest of him to fess up to what we can all see.
So, what next?
Channelling that George Osborne vibe is my bet, Keith and Rachel might even invite the austerian into an advisory role....what could go wrong?
-
You do make yourself look silly sometimes Albie, in this blind rush to criticise Starmer on every point.
He's talking about conservative values, not Conservative Party values.
"there are precious things – in our way of life, in our environment, in our communities – that it is our responsibility to protect and preserve and to pass on to future generations."
Things like the BBC, NHS, the environment. Things the Tory party has been very much not conserving.
Are you saying you don't agree with him on those points?
-
Keith has now come out as a fully fledged Tory;
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-real-conservatives-keir-starmer-protect-way-life-2337576
Honest of him to fess up to what we can all see.
So, what next?
Channelling that George Osborne vibe is my bet, Keith and Rachel might even invite the austerian into an advisory role....what could go wrong?
Not sure about anyone else but Starmer really does give the impression that he has no deep foundered principles and is very reliant on focus group think to aid his every move.
We really are totally bereft of any politicians with any statesmanship about them these days, lacking in principles and more importantly competence.
-
All the same mate, all the same.
-
False distinction again, BST, leading to the wrong conclusion as usual.
Conservative values are what informs Conservative political philosophy, as Labour values support Labour policies.
Not only is Keith abandoning Labour policies, he is doing so because his core beliefs are set by conservative values.
You cannot construct a Labour political offer based on conservative values without reconfiguring the party as Tory Mark 2.
This is his aim, to pitch for donations from capital interests, and reflect their concerns in policy formulation.
The idea is contradictory, and looks to limit political discussion to neo-liberal assumptions.
Hence the "we are the best conservatives" hookline. None of this is in the interests of lower income voters.
That is why he has been talking up key Thatcherite principles, like home ownership, when the crying need in the housing market is additional stock for social rent.
Likewise, he reckons he can promote new nuclear while reducing the cost of energy to consumers.
Nuclear is 5x more expensive on a unit cost basis than renewables!
Starmer has received past funding from private health interests, and his idea of protecting the NHS seems to involve further private involvement.
So yes, I do disagree with him....if he has any core values, they are nothing to do with the Labour tradition.
-
Albie.
Sorry, but you lost me there.
Are you saying that you DO agree with Starmer that Labour should "conserve" (protect) things like the NHS, BBC and the environment or are you saying you don't?
-
The NHS, BBC and the environment are NOT conservative values, and never have been.
The health service has been starved of resources, with outsourcing of key functions.
The BBC has been controlled by Tory appointments, and functions as a state broadcaster to define what can be discussed.
The environment is simply a source of raw materials to the Tories. They are allowing the water companies to dump their shyte in watercourses and the sea.
The idea that these are conservative values is completely insane.
Zero evidence from any source going back years that these are cherished Tory values.
If you can't see that, no-one can help you.
-
What are the conservative values that Starmer said he agreed with in his speech yesterday Albie? That's not what YOU think conservative values are - but what Starmer said they were yesterday.
I don't disagree with you btw in that he has come a long way from what he was saying in his leadership bid to what he is saying now. I do find it hilarious though in that the closer he comes to Tory/Lib Dem ideaology - the less the Tory/Lib Dem voters on here who profess to hold those same ideaologies like him!
-
I also see Starmer moving Labour further to the right than I'd prefer.
But I also understand why this is happening.
We need 15-20 years of sensible Govt to fix the damage that this Tory Govt had done, from Austerity to Brexit, the normalisation of plain lying, the gutting of local services, the disgrace of our transport network, the underfunding of schools, police and the NHS, the debasing of the principles of the BBC and the petrol thrown on the fires of Culture War.
It's been a decade and a half's work to produce this mess. It won't get fixed in 2-3 years. It's going to take a generation to put it right.
Labour won't get the chance to be in power that long if they appeal to the Left and only the Left. They need to be palatable to the Centre and even some on the Centre-Right.
The Left scream when this is said. "Sell out! Centrist! Blairite! Red Tory!" Because in their world, you be good, honest socialists, everyone joins you on the march to Utopia and you win without compromising.
Except it's never happened.
Anywhere.
Ever.
The centre-left wins long term when it moves the Overton Window slowly over a long time. Not when it stands off stage Left shouting abuse at everyone to the Right of it.
And here's the crux.
The Tories will disintegrate after they lose next year. There are ex-ministers queuing up at that CDO conference at the minute to shout that the party is losing because it's not far right enough, or not enough devoted to the Cult of Boris.
There's going to be a civil war for the soul of the Tory party and it's going to go further to the Right.
Which leaves an opportunity for Labour to secure the support of centre and even Centre-Right voters for a generation.
Starmer's not a Tory. But he's not stupid either. He knows there's a once in a generation chance for Labour to become the automatic party of Govt for a very long time.
It's not sexy. It's not revolutionary. But it is what we need.
-
Spot on Billy, the centre ground is usually where elections are won
-
They absolutely are and Boris Johnson was anything but right wing aswell, he's in many ways at least centrist.
I actually think Sunak could be a good Tory leader but he doesn't have the right people underneath him to make it happen.
BST is right, Labour can't win being too far to the left, they certainly haven't in my lifetime, mind you in my life Tony Blair's the only labour leader ever to win, which says a lot about the rest.
-
The trouble with this is that overall it doesn't provide a great deal of choice when political parties are falling over themselves to get to the middle ground, a good percentage of voters on both sides of the spectrum will feel disenfranchised by this race to the middle.
When we look at where we find ourselves politically its no great revelation to say we have fallen well behind the curve and middle ground policies are not going to be radical enough to get us moving in the right direction any time soon.
With Starmer bringing the Labour party towards the centre and the Tories being anything but conservative we now have rehashed policies being produced by both, it failed to work when it was originally mooted and there exist a very good possibility that it will fail again.
What i think the country needs more than anything is a radical rethink of where we are, we can't keep having parties producing election manifestoes and then totally ignoring what they originally stood on and expected to get elected on, we have all seen the way Brexit has been handled, along with just about every other policy the government has tried to implement, failure upon failure is not going to get us heading in the right direction, voters expected policies and commitments to be carried through and implemented, otherwise what's the point?
Conversely we now have Starmer, who could be the next PM rowing back on everything that's close to the Labour voting psyche, trying to do a Tony Blair in this instance may get him elected but how long will it be before he starts to row back on everything he originally committed to?
This is everything we as a country don't need, we need clear heads and radical thinking to kick start our economy, rehashed, failed policy will not get us down the road.
I'd very much rather both parties looked at themselves and worked to provide radical polices that are truly owned by both Labour and Conservatives, let the electorate decide but they really do need to look into their souls and decide are they members of left and right leaning parties or are we all Liberals these days, because if we are then we truly are buggered and can expect more years of failure and drift.
-
Wilts,
I answered your point in previous posts.
Starmer starts by setting up a "straw man" assertion, that the Tories do not represent "conservative values".
Examples given are the NHS, BBC and the environment....these are all really Labour values, which the Tories have undermined.
He then leans into his false assertion, by saying these areas will be better protected under Labour, without any evidence from policy to show how.
It is all part of a strategy to woo "soft tory" voters, because he thinks this will improve electoral prospects.
I think the voter response will be much more nuanced.
Some "red wall" tories will return, but others will distribute to other parties, and large numbers simply will not vote.
Set against any gains this plan brings with older voters must be the potential for loss of support among key groups.
BAME voters, metropolitan groups, the under 40's and marginalised groups will be deterred, and there is no good information on how that might pan out.
We are in a position where previous voting behaviours no longer give an indication of future intentions.
It is clear that social media manipulation is the most powerful influence on the persuadables in the run up to a GE.
Starmer is an old school right winger, using the tools those of his generation understand.
The world of politics is a different place once ChatGBT kicks through the information screen.
-
Christ sake Albie, he was using a bleeding play on words to make a point.
If he found the cure for cancer you'd complain that he hadn't solved the Palestinian Question.
-
Oh Yes, the play on words!
Dab hand at playing with words, is Keith.
That must have been what was going off with his lies and betrayals over the last few years;
https://youtu.be/Q-tygLDBCZs
Play on words....of course, why didn't I think of that!
-
Albie.
Let me help you. In your own post, you've (correctly) copied the word "conservative" with a lower case "c".
Does that help?
-
Oh Yes, the play on words!
Dab hand at playing with words, is Keith.
That must have been what was going off with his lies and betrayals over the last few years;
https://youtu.be/Q-tygLDBCZs
Play on words....of course, why didn't I think of that!
2m51s "I don't see nationalisation there" :facepalm:
-
As I asked previously Albie, can you tell me what the conservative values are that Starmer agrees with? Which will be in the article the quote is taken from. Not what you THINK are Starmer's conservative values - because again that is all you have written.
I don't agree with a lot of the policy shifts Starmer has announced. But that is because I dont agree with the policy shifts Starmer has announced - not what I THINK he has announced.
-
False distinction again, BST, leading to the wrong conclusion as usual.
Conservative values are what informs Conservative political philosophy, as Labour values support Labour policies.
Not only is Keith abandoning Labour policies, he is doing so because his core beliefs are set by conservative values.
You cannot construct a Labour political offer based on conservative values without reconfiguring the party as Tory Mark 2.
This is his aim, to pitch for donations from capital interests, and reflect their concerns in policy formulation.
The idea is contradictory, and looks to limit political discussion to neo-liberal assumptions.
Hence the "we are the best conservatives" hookline. None of this is in the interests of lower income voters.
That is why he has been talking up key Thatcherite principles, like home ownership, when the crying need in the housing market is additional stock for social rent.
Likewise, he reckons he can promote new nuclear while reducing the cost of energy to consumers.
Nuclear is 5x more expensive on a unit cost basis than renewables!
Starmer has received past funding from private health interests, and his idea of protecting the NHS seems to involve further private involvement.
So yes, I do disagree with him....if he has any core values, they are nothing to do with the Labour tradition.
Are renewables so cheap because they are so heavily subsidised and not as reliable? Just picking your brain.
-
Starmer:
“I’ll allow more homes in green belt”
“Labour will be the party of housebuilding”
A very good move in my opinion and what the country needs. The tories pander to the rural “not in my back yard types”.
Strangely enough, John McDonnell doesn’t agree. (Start your own party see how you get on?)
He says:
“The Green Belt was championed by the London County Council under Herbert Morrison in 1930s, legislated for by the Attlee Labour Government in 1940s & has been the fundamental basis of a battle to protect the environment in working class urban constituencies like mine over decades”
Blows my mind how some of the older generation prioritises the well-being of some grass over young people being able to afford housing. More socialist utopian thinking from him, he will just want houses to magically become cheaper.
-
Starmer:
“I’ll allow more homes in green belt”
“Labour will be the party of housebuilding”
A very good move in my opinion and what the country needs. The tories pander to the rural “not in my back yard types”.
Strangely enough, John McDonnell doesn’t agree. (Start your own party see how you get on?)
He says:
“The Green Belt was championed by the London County Council under Herbert Morrison in 1930s, legislated for by the Attlee Labour Government in 1940s & has been the fundamental basis of a battle to protect the environment in working class urban constituencies like mine over decades”
Blows my mind how some of the older generation prioritises the well-being of some grass over young people being able to afford housing. More socialist utopian thinking from him, he will just want houses to magically become cheaper.
Very interesting. My local councillors will not like that. We've hundreds of new homes being built round our villages (Edenthorpe) and their response on this was that they do object to it but it's rules set by the Tory government that allow it. Will be interesting to see how they explain this one to the locals.
I agree with Mcdonnell personally we should be protecting our green spaces. We need to find that compromise of housebuilding and green spaces.
-
The housing problem is made much worse by landbanking from developers, where they hold assets in anticipation of land value increase.
New housing is welcome, if it is in the area for which there is a need, AND also it is targeted to those most limited by the way the market works.
The UK has a shortage of affordable property for social rent, not a crisis for 3/4 bedroom detached properties.
Developers always propose the latter, because the margins are higher per unit.
It is a fallacy to think that all housebuilding will reduce pressure at the lower end.
-
Another interesting proposal, which I think is quite sensible. Again though, tough to stomach you'd think for a lot of labour members and many of those on this forum who have criticised private healthcare.
I wonder what Corbyn and his secret dossier think of it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65638171
-
Another interesting proposal, which I think is quite sensible. Again though, tough to stomach you'd think for a lot of labour members and many of those on this forum who have criticised private healthcare.
I wonder what Corbyn and his secret dossier think of it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65638171
It makes perfect sense to do this in the short-to-medium term.
The NHS has been chronically underfunded for 13 years under this lot. Waiting lists are at horrific levels. When Labour wins next year, it simply will not be possible to click your fingers and immediately magic up the required extra capacity in the NHS to quickly reduce those waiting times. It's going to take the thick end of a decade to repair the damage that this bunch has done.
Meantime, the question is: Do you stick to principles about private health and let people continue to suffer? No brainer for me.
-
BST,
Are you talking about lack of capacity because of staff shortage, or lack of operating facilities?
Not the same problem, are they?
Many of the staff operating in the private sector are NHS professionals moonlighting on the side to boost their income levels.
Both issues need to be addressed, but it is very unclear what Labour are actually proposing, and whether it will be subject to a sunset clause.
-
If people are interested in what is really going on, behind the posturing, then follow the money;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/mps-staff-offices-donations-million-business-bosses-gambling-climate-sceptics/
Who are the investors, and what do they want for their support up front?
-
well i found this out in a couple of minutes - it's India
-
More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/
Not a good look, this!
-
More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/
Not a good look, this!
Anyone who thinks that the Labour Party operate in some socialist utopia where shady deals, backhanders, sweeteners and financial incentives for influence and support don’t happen are quite frankly living on another planet.
Politicians all operate in the same world. Left or right.
And in this regard, they are all the same.
-
Although some are worse than others
-
Yeah of course they are all the same.
That well known socialist propaganda rag The Times reported this week that the last 16 Tory party Treasurer's have between them given £3.5m to the party. 15 of them have been given peerages. It's reported that as of today, there's an unspoken price list, with £800k donation buying you a seat in the Lords.
And no other party does this.
-
Just a reminder on the topic of Tories and the Lords. Only I have to pinch myself on this one regularly because it's so brazen it is scarcely believable.
The Tories gave a peerage to Lord Lebedev of Siberia.
Lord Lebedev's father is an ex-KGB colonel who is blacklisted by several NATO countries as a Putin agent.
It would be too stupid to be a spy thriller plot. But it's there right under our noses.
-
This one BST?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-embarrassed-by-friendly-message-to-evgeny-lebedev-on-peerage-z7wvtx7dj
-
More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/
Not a good look, this!
They've got to get staff and people in from somewhere. Are they not better off bringing in specialists no matter how junior than using those who aren't of the right level and skillset?
-
Just a reminder on the topic of Tories and the Lords. Only I have to pinch myself on this one regularly because it's so brazen it is scarcely believable.
The Tories gave a peerage to Lord Lebedev of Siberia.
Lord Lebedev's father is an ex-KGB colonel who is blacklisted by several NATO countries as a Putin agent.
It would be too stupid to be a spy thriller plot. But it's there right under our noses.
Your comment could quite easily be a direct lift from the very highest level covert authority document, authorised at the very highest level, by the head of MI6 and the Home Secretary.
“No one in their right mind would suspect him of being at the very highest level of international espionage would they?”
What fantastic cover. His “Legend” would pretty much write itself.
Only three know of his real role. Maybe even only two.
The head of MI6 and his Handler.
Just consider that for a moment.
It’s not as stupid or as far fetched as you think.
Extensive contacts and comms with high level persons in Russia still. A British and Russian citizen. Bi lingual. Shared interests. Big rewards. Free to travel pretty much where he wants still. No sanctions.
I’d have him on my books if I was in that World. In a heartbeat.
A Putin Agent, if He is indeed one, would make a very good double agent.
But that doesn’t fit with an anti Tory agenda does it?
-
Yeah. His dad did a brilliant long term cover job for his son. All them years on the KGB, then making a fortune in the Russian kleptocracy, and working for Putin, all for his bairn's legend.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872
More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?
-
More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/
Not a good look, this!
They've got to get staff and people in from somewhere. Are they not better off bringing in specialists no matter how junior than using those who aren't of the right level and skillset?
Pud,
The conflicts of interest here are obvious.
The big 4 accountancy companies have client lists that would value inside information on policy developments in advance.
Quite apart from having vested interests with a input steer on economic policy, the potential misuse of privileged access is an avoidable difficulty.
This is particularly the case where the role of the big 4 is contested in terms of the offshore shadow economy and the tax regime. They have been heavily fined for misuse of information previously.
These companies should be nowhere near the internal operations of a political party...it should be unlawful IMO.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872
More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?
(https://www.bblloobb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/the-centrist-rally-tweet-1024x463.png)
-
More murkiness emerging;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-pwc-ey-big-four-natwest-hydrogen-keir-starmer-secondment-staff/
Not a good look, this!
They've got to get staff and people in from somewhere. Are they not better off bringing in specialists no matter how junior than using those who aren't of the right level and skillset?
Pud,
The conflicts of interest here are obvious.
The big 4 accountancy companies have client lists that would value inside information on policy developments in advance.
Quite apart from having vested interests with a input steer on economic policy, the potential misuse of privileged access is an avoidable difficulty.
This is particularly the case where the role of the big 4 is contested in terms of the offshore shadow economy and the tax regime. They have been heavily fined for misuse of information previously.
These companies should be nowhere near the internal operations of a political party...it should be unlawful IMO.
I'd question then who are you going to get the consultancy work they offer in many ways completed by? Perhaps greater control on how they use the information with bigger penalties. There never will be a world where advance questioning of policies won't find its way to bigger businesses, it's routine conversation and there's as many pros as some of the cons you mention.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872
More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?
AKA. Having to deal with the real world fallout from Truss and Kwarteng.
-
Compare government borrowing in the latest forecast to that set in 2021 when the policy was announced. Over the period it's barely different, in timing yes but not in totality. The government borrowing forecast position isn't much different now to what it was back then at all when you compare it.
In March 21 Public sector net debt was forecast at 2025-26 end to be £2,804b or 103.8% of GDP.
The March 23 forecast had 2,776 at the same time period. or 99.1% of GDP.
So why was it ok back then but isn't ok now? Perhaps they've simply realised they have to properly cost things afterall?
Edited to add: I'm not sure the Kwaseng/Truss comparison is valid in this case. But surely even you can see Labour is at risk of looking at best unclear if it keeps shifting it's policies and backtracking continuously? As ever, it's harder to be bold if you actually have to implement it....
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872
More scaling back from labour, I wonder how many more they'll scale back or scrap?
A better question is whether the shortfall in funding will be sought from the private sector, and at what cost.
Twitter summary here;
https://twitter.com/MickMcAteer/status/1667149974562299906
Reeves does not appear to understand that the "fiscal rules" can be changed.
She made them up, and she can replace them if the situation warrants it.
-
BFYP.
It's not about the level of borrowing. It's about the perception of the UK as at risk of runaway inflation.
You can borrow and spend what you like when inflation expectations are low. When inflation expectations are high, borrowing and spending risks stoking the fires.
Bizarrely, over the past 50 years, the Tories have four times got that spectacularly wrong:
The Barber and Lawson booms where they set off rampant inflation for years.
The Howe Budget and Austerity where they slashed Govt spending and borrowing during weak economic times and saw massive economic slowdowns.
What you are doing is criticising Labour for seeing the potential danger and avoiding it in advance.
-
Albie.
"Fiscal Rules" are an explicit acknowledgement of some of the fundamental principles of macroeconomics.
Basically, Fiscal Rules accept that you can't run unfunded current account deficits for long periods without major problems arising.
You can no more change them than you can say gravity doesn't exist, therefore you can jump out of the window.
-
BST,
Fiscal rules are set by the government, and as such they are a political choice.
They are an invention of New Labour, to provide a fig leaf to cover the modesty of spending restraint.
Gordon Brown used them as a marketing device, to pull the wool over people who do not understand economics.
There is no immutable basis for these fiscal rules in economic theory.
To see that, look at the history since 1997;
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/fiscal-rules-history
Not only have they been set to new standards at different points, but they have often not been delivered.
The policy actions of governments in power sidestep the rules, because they are essentially a propaganda tool in the neo-liberal economic mythology.
The Labour Treasury team (and Reeves in particular) are in hock to Bank of England orthodoxies, precisely the model that the UK economy needs to be flexible to escape from.
The framework for any economic programme is the revenue base.
Reeves could choose to tax the high earning 5%, using the wealth tax as a mechanism to fund important priorities like the green new deal.
Having foolishly ruled this out, Labour have trapped themselves between a rock and a hard place, and will pivot to a version of austerity based on the backstop of these selected restrictions.
-
Johnson's latest batch of honours is sickening and gives more reasons to abolish the whole thing, including the House of Lords.
-
Just a reminder on the topic of Tories and the Lords. Only I have to pinch myself on this one regularly because it's so brazen it is scarcely believable.
The Tories gave a peerage to Lord Lebedev of Siberia.
Lord Lebedev's father is an ex-KGB colonel who is blacklisted by several NATO countries as a Putin agent.
It would be too stupid to be a spy thriller plot. But it's there right under our noses.
Your comment could quite easily be a direct lift from the very highest level covert authority document, authorised at the very highest level, by the head of MI6 and the Home Secretary.
“No one in their right mind would suspect him of being at the very highest level of international espionage would they?”
What fantastic cover. His “Legend” would pretty much write itself.
Only three know of his real role. Maybe even only two.
The head of MI6 and his Handler.
Just consider that for a moment.
It’s not as stupid or as far fetched as you think.
Extensive contacts and comms with high level persons in Russia still. A British and Russian citizen. Bi lingual. Shared interests. Big rewards. Free to travel pretty much where he wants still. No sanctions.
I’d have him on my books if I was in that World. In a heartbeat.
A Putin Agent, if He is indeed one, would make a very good double agent.
But that doesn’t fit with an anti Tory agenda does it?
Nor does Johnson being so corrupt he will take money from anyone, anywhere to gain himself power and prestige and damn the consequences. But his fans will still excuse it and the consequences for this country.
If Johnson had not cosied up to the Russians they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Him allowing stolen Russian money to enter the City was one of the factor that emboldened Putin.
Loads of books about it. Proper ones - not the fantasies you seem to read.
-
Another day, another U-turn.
Begs the question - what are Labour actually going to do when in power? I appreciate that this far out from an election, it's more about setting broad ideological positions and mood music, maybe a few headline policies at this stage. So far, they don't seem to have an ideology, the headline policies have all been scrapped and the mood music is;
-We'll say whatever to get in power
-We can't afford anything
-Better things aren't possible
-Let us have a go in charge anyway, it's our turn
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/13/labour-rules-out-universal-childcare-for-young-children-in-fiscal-credibility-drive?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Glad the grown ups are back in charge.
-
Another day, another U-turn.
Begs the question - what are Labour actually going to do when in power? I appreciate that this far out from an election, it's more about setting broad ideological positions and mood music, maybe a few headline policies at this stage. So far, they don't seem to have an ideology, the headline policies have all been scrapped and the mood music is;
-We'll say whatever to get in power
-We can't afford anything
-Better things aren't possible
-Let us have a go in charge anyway, it's our turn
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/13/labour-rules-out-universal-childcare-for-young-children-in-fiscal-credibility-drive?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Glad the grown ups are back in charge.
The absolute worst thing about all this will be when they finally assume power they will change tack again and say that the conditions and timing are not now right to enable us to apply the fiscal rues that we set out previously, even though we have spent the best part of this parliament telling every man and his dog that our policies will correct the wrongs that are currently affecting us.
Having laid the groundwork constantly, by forever changing tack on what they were telling us last month was the correct policy to follow leads one to think,
Do these people actually know what they are trying to achieve?
If they can flagrantly change tack in opposition who's to stop them continuing in government?
Out of the frying pan and into the fire, Is Reeves any good at cooking?
-
I've said it on here before; Labour will win the GE, and absolutely nothing will change from the sh*t we're all living in right now.
-
SS.
Nothing will change quickly. That's not possible and you have to factor that in.
We've had 13 years of awful economic policy.
Austerity
Brexit
Truss/Kwarteng.
You don't fix that in the blink of an eye.
We had the chance for the Govt to borrow to invest in infrastructure at literally negative interest rates. We missed that boat and it's not coming back for a while.
Meantime productivity has flat lined for the whole time this lot has been in power. That's the key issue. If productivity doesn't improve, we don't get better off. That's a cast iron fact of economics. Figuring out what the problem here is, and fixing it has not even been on the agenda.
Labour had a decent inheritance in 1997. By then, the Thatcherite obsessives had been put to one side for 5 years and Ken Clarke as Chancellor had run the economy well for that period. Labour built on that and the result was that we had the longest spell of unbroken growth for well over a century. Before the GLOBAL Financial Crash hit everyone, things were unrecognisable from where they were 15 years before.
It's going to take 15 years to sort out the mess we are currently in. What matters now is getting the direction right. If you're driving at 70 miles an hour in the wrong direction and you start to correct that, you don't start driving in the right direction immediately.
-
SS.
Nothing will change quickly. That's not possible and you have to factor that in.
We've had 13 years of awful economic policy.
Austerity
Brexit
Truss/Kwarteng.
You don't fix that in the blink of an eye.
We had the chance for the Govt to borrow to invest in infrastructure at literally negative interest rates. We missed that boat and it's not coming back for a while.
Meantime productivity has flat lined for the whole time this lot has been in power. That's the key issue. If productivity doesn't improve, we don't get better off. That's a cast iron fact of economics. Figuring out what the problem here is, and fixing it has not even been on the agenda.
Labour had a decent inheritance in 1997. By then, the Thatcherite obsessives had been put to one side for 5 years and Ken Clarke as Chancellor had run the economy well for that period. Labour built on that and the result was that we had the longest spell of unbroken growth for well over a century. Before the GLOBAL Financial Crash hit everyone, things were unrecognisable from where they were 15 years before.
It's going to take 15 years to sort out the mess we are currently in. What matters now is getting the direction right. If you're driving at 70 miles an hour in the wrong direction and you start to correct that, you don't start driving in the right direction immediately.
We had six years of war between 1939 and1945 the country was devastated and in ruins plus it was bankrupt .
The new incoming government Labour government had the will and balls to provide the country a better future .
If that was possible then don't give me your 15 years now Billy .
Political will to provide the necessary change please .
As for your 15 years , Keith won't do five unless he ups his game .
-
I'm confused as to where the current Labour party has said they're going to change anything.
Just enabled the Tory anti protest bill, by the way.
-
The plan seems to be let the Tories pass repressive legislation, with just token opposition, and then inherit that position if they win the GE.
The decision to whip in the HoL to abstain on the anti-protest bill is a complete disgrace;
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1668710154286579719?cxt=HHwWjoC2tenCuaguAAAA
This procedure is a slight of hand by the government, and the official opposition fails to support the Greens and oppose.
-
It'll be that windfall tax again won't it - "ah it's too late now" as if it was ever viable in the first place!
-
Tyke.
In 1945, we'd just had 5 years of evidence that central planning was a strong method of getting results.
We'd had a horrifically bad inter War period and there was a cry for a new approach.
Even so, Labour couldn't make the macroeconomic numbers add up with a massive crack down on public consumption. You reckon people today would be up for that? Having bread rationed?
And even THEN, the economy would have caved in without Marshall Plan money.
I've had years of being lectured about "Well in 1945..." by people who evidently don't have the first idea of what actually happened. Transformatory as it was, it's not repeatable.
Here's the issue today. And this is what the lazy snipers from the Left need to take on board.
Labour has been labelled for decades with the badge that they are economically incompetent.
It's a lie.
Over the past half century, most of the disastrous macroeconomic mistakes have been made by Tory Govts.
But that doesn't matter. It's what people THINK is true that matters, not what is actually true.
The only way Labour loses next year is if the Tories can pin the "You Can't Trust Labour" badge on them.
So Labour has to be seen to be spotlessly clean on debt and borrowing.
Do I like it? Of course I don't. It's not optimal for economic policy.
But that's politics. You choose what the real world offers you.
You can have the Tories out of power, ripping themselves apart and unelectable for 15 years, while Labour, quietly at first, moves things the right way. Slower than they should. Slower than I'd like. But in the right way over a long period.
Or, you can throw a strop and scream "Full on Socialism or Nothing."
In which case, you'll get worse than nothing. You'll get the Tories for another decade.
You decide what you want.
-
Poor Billy, as devoted as a spaniel to his master Keith, but sadly deeply deluded.
If you imagine Keith will steer back from the far right to the extreme centre once elected, you have not understood his role in the re-alignment of UK neo-liberalism.
The central principle is to embed the arbitrary "fiscal rules" as a core value to political debate.
From that, if you set rules to accept a presumption in favour of low borrowing analysis, it is a small step to default to austerity as a first economic response.
Any intelligent discussion of raising the revenue base is pushed to the margins.
The ambition is to lock in to a narrative shared by both parties, with the only point of difference being competent management.
There is no clear dividing line on key points of principle.
The HoL debacle on the Green "fatal motion" shows this merger of interests.
The excuses given by Labour have no relevance, and are there to passively endorse the Tories in tightening the rules.
https://twitter.com/premnsikka/status/1668872918770540545
Video summary of the issues here:
https://twitter.com/KernowDamo/status/1669024105104908294
The use of "statutory instrument" is a case in point, allowing the government to bypass the need to process a legal change via passing a Bill as primary legislation.
If you can do this in this instance, you can do it again where opposition is raised.
Labour have given tacit consent to the rinse and repeat of this tactic in future.
-
Tyke.
In 1945, we'd just had 5 years of evidence that central planning was a strong method of getting results.
We'd had a horrifically bad inter War period and there was a cry for a new approach.
Even so, Labour couldn't make the macroeconomic numbers add up with a massive crack down on public consumption. You reckon people today would be up for that? Having bread rationed?
And even THEN, the economy would have caved in without Marshall Plan money.
I've had years of being lectured about "Well in 1945..." by people who evidently don't have the first idea of what actually happened. Transformatory as it was, it's not repeatable.
Here's the issue today. And this is what the lazy snipers from the Left need to take on board.
Labour has been labelled for decades with the badge that they are economically incompetent.
It's a lie.
Over the past half century, most of the disastrous macroeconomic mistakes have been made by Tory Govts.
But that doesn't matter. It's what people THINK is true that matters, not what is actually true.
The only way Labour loses next year is if the Tories can pin the "You Can't Trust Labour" badge on them.
So Labour has to be seen to be spotlessly clean on debt and borrowing.
Do I like it? Of course I don't. It's not optimal for economic policy.
But that's politics. You choose what the real world offers you.
You can have the Tories out of power, ripping themselves apart and unelectable for 15 years, while Labour, quietly at first, moves things the right way. Slower than they should. Slower than I'd like. But in the right way over a long period.
Or, you can throw a strop and scream "Full on Socialism or Nothing."
In which case, you'll get worse than nothing. You'll get the Tories for another decade.
You decide what you want.
We will potentially get the Tories for another decade because if Labour don't put some clear daylight between themselves and the Conservative Party and pretty sharpish then nobody will be enthused to go out and vote for them .
It's entirely up to the Labour Party to attract my vote .
You can waffle on all you want about the slow but sure process but it seems to me Labour can't even stick to the few promises they've made in opposition so how you see that as slow progress is beyond me .
Labour have turned so much to the right the majority of its leading figures wouldn't look out of place in a Cameron government .
If I wanted another Cameron government I'd have voted for one in 2010 and 2015 in the first place .
-
As ever Albie, you lot on the far left ignore the fact that your beautifully crafted schemes are piss and wind if you don't actually win power.
Run by me how you have that "intelligent debate" about taxes without leaving Labour exposed to precisely the wrong public image that I mentioned above (and you totally ignored).
And when you start from the premise that anyone who prioritises getting elected is a class traitor, you'll convince yourself that every Labour govt are class traitors.
-
BST,
Not an iota of rational thinking in the standard responses from the Labour right.....just patronising assumptions about what people value!
You do not seem to have grasped that a wealth tax is supported by a majority of UK voters:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/01/23/three-quarters-britons-support-wealth-taxes-millio
Alongside a wealth tax, Labour could commit to matching Capital Gains Tax with Income Taxes.
As long as it is explained that the funds raised would be directed to restoring the NHS (remember that bus), or to enable the green energy transition, then most would understand the logic.
So the net gain in support for such a policy would be a substantial boost to popularity, but instead Keith prefers to just bin the policy.
What exactly is wrong with saying how you will raise money to promote policies to improve peoples lives?
The idea that Labour should make policy delivery hostage to fortune by restricting ambitions to force fit inside made up "fiscal rules" is bonkers.
It is very bad politics, and completely irrational economics.
As you think this would be the "wrong public image", what is the evidence that the public want a Labour Party with no declared policy intentions which differentiate from Sunak?
-
Another pledge (or was it a mission) thrown overboard by Keith in the Murdoch Sunday Times;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-in-retreat-from-north-sea-oil-pledge-mhhtxjqfk
Green new deal now looking a bit threadbare, given the size of the developing crisis.
So that will set the framework for the next government.
Tories will give consents that Labour will not reverse.
-
Let's see how the so called younger Labour internationalists that Billy often refers to go about eating some of these apples .
All for a donation of £5m .
https://youtu.be/2IK58CE2RsQ
-
Keith is a dangerous fool if he thinks that licences for oil and gas are compatible with climate change objectives;
https://twitter.com/i/status/1670682201313230848
The idea is completely insane given the trajectory to meet a limit of 1.5 degree increase.
It is important that Rosebank and Cambo do not proceed.
-
Owd Keith gets truthbombed at one of his set piece rallies;
https://media.mas.to/masto-public/cache/media_attachments/files/110/667/131/127/878/539/original/88f2733fad0a7fdc.mp4
Wakey wakey!
-
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1677050517426454531?t=-b3ER1PYhZ416MhPHCnTbg&s=19
They'll do well to do much with the constraints they are tying themselves too. Tories should be more optimistic with recent labour announcements I think. We badly need an alternative to both.
-
That lass that truthbombed Keith giving an interview to explain giving him the what for;
https://files.mastodon.green/cache/media_attachments/files/110/668/439/792/972/187/original/adbab5f0da453ab3.mp4
Not that he will listen!
-
The latest U-turn - refusing to reverse the child benefit cap, a policy that his shadow work and pensions secretary described as heinous and offensive a month ago - is a really serious one.
Who does this help? Who is briefing him to make these decisions? Why does he think driving kids into poverty is a vote winner? What is the point of a party that refuses to offer any kind of hope at all - in fact actually scoffs at the idea of offering hope.
Frankly I'm actually a bit scared if this lot get in power. I'm scared that they'll be so ineffective and devoid of ideas in government that they'll open the door to the far right to get in power in 2029. Then we'll be in real trouble.
-
The latest U-turn - refusing to reverse the child benefit cap, a policy that his shadow work and pensions secretary described as heinous and offensive a month ago - is a really serious one.
Who does this help? Who is briefing him to make these decisions? Why does he think driving kids into poverty is a vote winner? What is the point of a party that refuses to offer any kind of hope at all - in fact actually scoffs at the idea of offering hope.
Frankly I'm actually a bit scared if this lot get in power. I'm scared that they'll be so ineffective and devoid of ideas in government that they'll open the door to the far right to get in power in 2029. Then we'll be in real trouble.
Exactly right , a Labour Government that doesn't tackle child poverty or improve the lives of the very people it was founded to represent is doing nothing other than to steal Tory clothes .
Today's Guardian is getting desperate , " let's not judge the Labour Party on it's words as opposition but when it comes to government " .
Well it's to be hoped if elected to government they do actually improve the lives of the people they were founded to represent because as you've alluded to , the far right will be more than happy to fill the void .
As we all know only the left can truly fight the far right .
-
The latest U-turn - refusing to reverse the child benefit cap, a policy that his shadow work and pensions secretary described as heinous and offensive a month ago - is a really serious one.
Who does this help? Who is briefing him to make these decisions? Why does he think driving kids into poverty is a vote winner? What is the point of a party that refuses to offer any kind of hope at all - in fact actually scoffs at the idea of offering hope.
Frankly I'm actually a bit scared if this lot get in power. I'm scared that they'll be so ineffective and devoid of ideas in government that they'll open the door to the far right to get in power in 2029. Then we'll be in real trouble.
Why they are doing it is fairly obvious - so that they can avoid the Tory accusations of spending out of control and where's the money going to come from.
All the interviewers still do it whenever they have a Labour politican on - where's the money for your policies going to come from? Yet the Tories are proposing to scrap income tax at a cost of £1.7 billion - did anyone ask any Tory politican on any news show over the weekend, where's the money going to come from?
I dont think it's right, Starmer should be bigger and bolder and offer a vision, but that's why he's doing it - so the Tories can't accuse him of being profligate with taxpayers money.
-
Mick Lynch has the position perfectly summed up, wanting to know when Starmer is going to say something that will actually show him to be different to the Tories.
What an awful choice people are going to have in the polling booths next year.
-
The latest U-turn - refusing to reverse the child benefit cap, a policy that his shadow work and pensions secretary described as heinous and offensive a month ago - is a really serious one.
Who does this help? Who is briefing him to make these decisions? Why does he think driving kids into poverty is a vote winner? What is the point of a party that refuses to offer any kind of hope at all - in fact actually scoffs at the idea of offering hope.
Frankly I'm actually a bit scared if this lot get in power. I'm scared that they'll be so ineffective and devoid of ideas in government that they'll open the door to the far right to get in power in 2029. Then we'll be in real trouble.
I agree entirely.
The problem is, thee and me aren't the problem here.
The problem is that 60% of the population want to keep that cap.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1
Unfortunately for thee and me, if a Labour Govt is going to make a change to society, it has to get elected first. And hopefully stay in power for 20 years.
That means it has to attract the support of a lot of people who I wouldn't like to have to spend time with.
Of course, the Labour Party could just wear its heart in its sleeve on every topic regardless of public opinion. Would that make you feel better?
-
Of course political parties have to consider public opinion before launching election promises and manifestos.
But they can't be fully beholden to it. That's called populism.
Neither can they promise to do/not do certain things as they're popular in order to get elected and then once elected do the opposite. That erodes trust in the party and reduces their chance of re-election.
How many of the 60% Billy quotes as being in favour of the cap see it as a deal-breaker re how they vote?? Very few I'd suggest.
If the Labour party believe this cap to be "heinous and offensive" then they should have the courage to campaign on removing it and aim to persuade the public as to their point of view rather than pandering to people they fundamentally disagree with.
The other thing that happens when political parties refuse to follow ideals even at a most fundamental level?
They're accused of lacking political principles and are then in danger of losing potential votes. Which is why "What does Sir Keir Starmer stand for?" is a question that reverberates.
-
I accept the need to be pragmatic. But at some point that pragmatism turns into cold cynicism. I understand you have to compromise your principles sometimes. But you still need to have some! And if the labour party can't oppose a policy that drives starving kids further into poverty on a point of principle, then what's the point? Because it won't play well with your red wall focus group? That's populism. And all it does is shunt the overton window further right.
Stand for something. Make an argument beyond "it's our turn in charge." If these grifting spivs get in with a thumping majority, and enact the Cameron-esque policies and economic philosophy that they're currently proposing, and that you've ripped to shreds many times, we are in a scary place as a country. Because then the real Tory headbangers like Braverman and Anderson, will have all the ammo they need to run in 2029 on an authoritarian manifesto, and they'll win.
That's what Sir Kid Starver is risking with this craven bullshit. Hope it's worth it.
-
Labour will always have people who vote for them come what may.
The same applies to the Tories.
The floating voter will decide who wins the next GE so it is now that Starmer needs to win over the floating voter if he wants to be PM.
He doesn’t appear to be doing that.
-
If Starmer and his fanboys were any less intelligent they would have roots.
Snuggling up to the prejudices of soft Tories makes you a hostage to fortune, in order to please those who will reject you at the first opportunity.
Following on from the daily reversals and shape shifting, NE Mayor Jamie Driscoll has quit Labour to run as an Independent.
This after been denied the chance to put his bid to stand by the ludicrous Keith.
Summary here of the betrayal on reform to the allowance which would help eradicate child poverty;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2egd47Fds50
If Keith won't eradicate child poverty, is he in favour of it?
What an embarrassment he is!
-
And here we have classic examples of why the Left has never, ever won power.
Because for the Left, posturing ALWAYS comes before the grubby, dirty business of actually winning power.
It's always about proclaiming how much you care. And if you then don't get into power to actually do anything, it's the fault of the electorate or the centrists.
Stop and think. Has ANY Labour Govt EVER left office with more kids in poverty than when it took office? And when you climb down off your soap bubble soap boxes, do you genuinely believe that's what this next Labour Govt will do?
-
We don't have much to judge labour on though do we? Tony Blair is the only labour leader to win an election inf at least 40 years...
There is a limit to how many pledges you can change your view on surely? What does he stand for and what do labour want to be. They don't have to be as different as Corbyn but at least try something.
Of course the next 12 months we'll see what the parties are going to do. Labours vote is still fairly soft and that gives the Tories an opportunity if they can get past parties, Boris Johnson and settle inflation.
-
People should be getting encouraged to have more kids. The western world is going to have a serious ageing population problem in the coming decades. And that will require a lot of tax and spend.
The electorate like a politician with conviction who they feel can “get things done” “mean what they say” and “say it how it is”, as daft as that sounds. I can’t imagine Kier inspiring many swing voters come the TV debates. I don’t really have an opinion on him myself he’s just “meh”.
He will win by default but it’s not exactly the wave of optimism I believe Blair had in ‘97? (Too young to remember)
-
I’m done with character and personality politics. Just give me someone who’s competent to do the job. Keir Starmer is the only one who fits the bill.
-
If Starmer and his fanboys were any less intelligent they would have roots.
Snuggling up to the prejudices of soft Tories makes you a hostage to fortune, in order to please those who will reject you at the first opportunity.
Following on from the daily reversals and shape shifting, NE Mayor Jamie Driscoll has quit Labour to run as an Independent.
This after been denied the chance to put his bid to stand by the ludicrous Keith.
Summary here of the betrayal on reform to the allowance which would help eradicate child poverty;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2egd47Fds50
If Keith won't eradicate child poverty, is he in favour of it?
What an embarrassment he is!
It’s a sound decision up here Albie. Kim McGuinness has much more appeal to the wider electorate
-
And here we have classic examples of why the Left has never, ever won power.
Because for the Left, posturing ALWAYS comes before the grubby, dirty business of actually winning power.
It's always about proclaiming how much you care. And if you then don't get into power to actually do anything, it's the fault of the electorate or the centrists.
Stop and think. Has ANY Labour Govt EVER left office with more kids in poverty than when it took office? And when you climb down off your soap bubble soap boxes, do you genuinely believe that's what this next Labour Govt will do?
The shadow culture secretary was on the news this morning saying - and this is a direct quote - "there is no money left". So we're now seeing Labour adopt an identical economic philosophy to the Cameron government, one that has hobbled the economy for over a decade, and one that you personally have (rightly) ripped apart repeatedly on here. It's not credible to suggest that Labour will suddenly shift back to Keynesian policies after arguing there is no money left to invest!
People aren't getting on a soapbox, they're simply addressing the things Labour are actually saying in reality. You appear to be addressing things you would like Labour to do, even though they are saying they will do the opposite of those things.
Here's another example - Labour pitching for Tory donors. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-14/labour-invites-tory-donors-to-breakfast-in-bid-to-woo-city-elite
Now, I accept the need to reach across the aisle somewhat. But do you really think those donors, if they hitch their wagon to the Labour Party, are likely to support any kind of even mildly transformative agenda? They're just going to plough millions into the Labour Party and ask for nothing in return when Labour are in power? Come on. It's just not credible.
-
And here we have classic examples of why the Left has never, ever won power.
Because for the Left, posturing ALWAYS comes before the grubby, dirty business of actually winning power.
It's always about proclaiming how much you care. And if you then don't get into power to actually do anything, it's the fault of the electorate or the centrists.
Stop and think. Has ANY Labour Govt EVER left office with more kids in poverty than when it took office? And when you climb down off your soap bubble soap boxes, do you genuinely believe that's what this next Labour Govt will do?
So just to clarify we are to believe and trust that Keith whose U turned on just about everything he's said previously isn't really such a bad sort of chap after all and doesn't really mean what he says currently .
I think your centrist Labour Tribalism is leading you down the same path as those who voted for Johnson in 2019 .
" Oh so he tells a few fibs now and again , he's a grand sort of fella really ".
As in they aren't really U turns , " you'll see once Keith is PM he'll not let you down ".
What the hell does Labour's past have to do with anything ? , it doesn't given this is the most Right Wing Labour leader in the party's history .
-
And here we have classic examples of why the Left has never, ever won power.
Because for the Left, posturing ALWAYS comes before the grubby, dirty business of actually winning power.
It's always about proclaiming how much you care. And if you then don't get into power to actually do anything, it's the fault of the electorate or the centrists.
Stop and think. Has ANY Labour Govt EVER left office with more kids in poverty than when it took office? And when you climb down off your soap bubble soap boxes, do you genuinely believe that's what this next Labour Govt will do?
Political policy making has to be a mixture of respecting and following public opinion and persuading the public to your view point. On a case by case or policy by policy basis.
I agree with you that the Left have tended to too much of the latter and courted unpopularity and defeat.
But too much of the former is populism pure and simple. Especially if you're following public opinion that you fundamentally disagree with. You're also making yourself appear utterly free of principle.
If you're advocating Labour campaigning on keeping this policy in place then overturning it when in power. Then you're advocating electoral dishonesty.
How can you justify continuously complaining about Tory populism and dishonesty (not that I don't often agree with you) on one hand but advocate populist decision making and electoral dishonesty on the other just because it suits your own political preference and agenda??
-
Starmer will become a Labour Prime Minister, and he will be the worst one in history, even worse than Callaghan.
-
Starmer will become a Labour Prime Minister, and he will be the worst one in history, even worse than Callaghan.
Possibly the last Labour PM also.
-
Starmer will become a Labour Prime Minister, and he will be the worst one in history, even worse than Callaghan.
I fear that you may be right SS.
On all points mentioned.
It will be interesting though to see if he is defended by his supporters.
-
What, you mean defended by the same people who supported Corbyn before the last GE, only to turn their back on him and support a new leader who also turned his back on him?
What's that saying about I'll even vote for a monkey as long as he's wearing a red rosette?
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
Loving the blind loyalty , Keith renegades on practically everything he's promised from standing for the Labour Party leader and whilst leader .
Excuse my scepticism that his Election Manifesto will be any different with the historic track record .
It's generally a good idea as a prospective Labour PM to actually come across as someone you can have confidence in and at least some kind of trust even if you don't always agree with everything .
The only person who will hand the next election to the Tories is Keith Starmer himself .
Don't think for one moment that he isn't capable of blowing this .
A man with no beliefs is incapable of leadership .
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
Kato, after what has gone before I just want someone who can be trusted and relied on to run the country.
I genuinely don’t think KS is that man.
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
-
I will.
Those liars in opposition aren't going to build another 40 new hospitals.
They are not going to stop the boats.
Thet won't put £250 a week into the NHS.
Kier Starmer's wife has probably avoided tax.
Also if the country ever finds itself in a crisis,they will be handing out millions of pounds to friends and landlords of local pubs , pissing it up while millions suffer.
I'd never trust an opposition like that.
-
I will.
Those liars in opposition aren't going to build another 40 new hospitals.
They are not going to stop the boats.
Thet won't put £250m a week into the NHS.
Kier Starmer's wife has probably avoided tax.
Also if the country ever finds itself in a crisis,they will be handing out millions of pounds to friends and landlords of local pubs , pissing it up while millions suffer.
I'd never trust an opposition like that.
Edit. I'd have to be thick as f@#k to vote for a party like that.
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
Loving the blind loyalty , Keith renegades on practically everything he's promised from standing for the Labour Party leader and whilst leader .
Excuse my scepticism that his Election Manifesto will be any different with the historic track record .
It's generally a good idea as a prospective Labour PM to actually come across as someone you can have confidence in and at least some kind of trust even if you don't always agree with everything .
The only person who will hand the next election to the Tories is Keith Starmer himself .
Don't think for one moment that he isn't capable of blowing this .
A man with no beliefs is incapable of leadership .
Please read what I put. No blind loyalty in anything I wrote.
Meantime, I’ll wait for the various manifestos which, by the way, will be those of the various parties and not of any individual.
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
Kato, after what has gone before I just want someone who can be trusted and relied on to run the country.
I genuinely don’t think KS is that man.
Not an unreasonable requirement Hound. So which party leader fulfils that requirement in your view?
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
But you clearly don’t believe they have the people who could deliver a good manifesto (neither do I, by the way), do you? So what is the point in waiting for their manifesto?
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
But you clearly don’t believe they have the people who could deliver a good manifesto (neither do I, by the way), do you? So what is the point in waiting for their manifesto?
Because, by the time their manifesto is issued, there may be significant changes in those at the 'top'. There are, I believe, far better people on their back benches than there are in cabinet.
Having said that, it is sad that the previous and current regimes did all they could to drive away a number of the 'better' Tories.
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
If the Tories come up with such a manifesto at the next election, the bigger question to me is why they aren't implementing it now instead of letting things stagnate until then.
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
And what have you seen whilst in government that makes you believe the Tories will stick to anything they put in a manefesto given they haven't done so for the last one?
Or can you show me where to find details of the 40 new hospitals, how the country has been 'levelled up' and in what way banning protests and strikes has 'taken back control'?
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
If the Tories come up with such a manifesto at the next election, the bigger question to me is why they aren't implementing it now instead of letting things stagnate until then.
That applies to any party hoping to get re-elected, doesn’t it?
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
If the Tories come up with such a manifesto at the next election, the bigger question to me is why they aren't implementing it now instead of letting things stagnate until then.
That applies to any party hoping to get re-elected, doesn’t it?
No, usually a sitting government's basic position is 'more of the same' with perhaps one or two new policies thrown in.
What do you think will happen if 'more of the same' is the Tories' message at the next election? And if they say they'll make big changes, the electorate will surely say 'why haven't you made these big changes before going into an election (and then saying 'more of the same') instead of promising them for afterwards'.
-
To be truthful Glyn, there will always be plenty of people who will vote Tory and not ask the questions that you are mentioning.
From reading posts on here over the years I am confident that the majority of Labour supporters amongst us would do the same in similar circumstances.
-
To be truthful Glyn, there will always be plenty of people who will vote Tory and not ask the questions that you are mentioning.
From reading posts on here over the years I am confident that the majority of Labour supporters amongst us would do the same in similar circumstances.
It was a well-understood phenomenon even back when I studied Politics over forty years ago. The only thing that's changed are the projected percentages
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
If the Tories come up with such a manifesto at the next election, the bigger question to me is why they aren't implementing it now instead of letting things stagnate until then.
Indeed.
-
Perhaps you should wait and see what’s in the respective manifestos before making up your minds.
Oh, wait, you won’t read them will you; you’ve already made your minds up you’d rather have the current bunch irrespective of their total failings!
So will you be voting for the totally failing Tories if they have a better manifesto than Labour?
If, and it’s a big IF, the Tory Party comes up with a manifesto which I believe will be better for the country as a whole, (or at least for the majority of people in the country). And if, again it’s a big IF, I believe they have the people who can deliver what’s in it; then of course I would. Only a fool would do otherwise.
But, given their current track record, it is highly unlikely indeed. For those portending to be conservatives today are nowhere near the calibre of their predecessors! They have demonstrated this without any shadow of doubt.
And what have you seen whilst in government that makes you believe the Tories will stick to anything they put in a manefesto given they haven't done so for the last one?
Or can you show me where to find details of the 40 new hospitals, how the country has been 'levelled up' and in what way banning protests and strikes has 'taken back control'?
As I have said, the current incumbents are a bunch of charlatans. There is nothing that I have seen that would have me believe anything they say. That isn’t to say that there aren’t better conservatives on the back benches that could do a better job.
But then, my Dog could do a better job, and I don’t even have a dog!
-
If Labour have won Selby then they will walk the general election. Never thought I’d ever see that. Well done to the young lad.
They will gain a fair few in Scotland from the SNP too.
-
The result in Uxbridge shows the mentality of the average voter.
Never mind the last 13 years of Tory misrule, Austerity, the cost of living crisis, the blatant corruption and lies during covid, Liz Truss, no I'll vote Tory coz I don't want to pay a clean air charge.
-
The result in Uxbridge shows the mentality of the average voter.
Never mind the last 13 years of Tory misrule, Austerity, the cost of living crisis, the blatant corruption and lies during covid, Liz Truss, no I'll vote Tory coz I don't want to pay a clean air charge.
Local election decided on local issue shocker
-
People will vote for what matters to them on a whole, that's kind of the point. Momentum is good for labour at the moment and thats usually a positive sign in most things.
I think the biggest issues for labour are them making their own mistakes and what those that actually aren't voting in these elections think.
I don't think sunak is a bad leader but he's leading a pretty tricky bunch. I suspect he'll benefit a bit from Johnson and others now being gone.
-
Sunak is as corrupt as the rest of them JMHO
-
Raven, I’m curious.
Why do you think that.
-
Undeclated interests might be a start. Shall we say to be kind "dodgy dealings" as Chancellor
-
Raven, I’m curious.
Why do you think that.
Some light reading for you hound. As far as I am aware his wife's company is still operating, and making her/them money, in Russia in defiance of British sanctions:
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/06/government-fraud-quadruples-on-rishi-sunaks-watch-new-report-reveals/
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/18/everything-to-declare-the-conflicts-of-interest-rishi-sunak-wont-talk-about/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/17/parliament-watchdog-opens-investigation-into-rishi-sunak
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-slam-rishi-sunaks-increasing-30092923
https://gal-dem.com/rishi-sunak-cost-of-living-bad-politician-tory-leadership/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murthy-non-dom-wife-tax-b2052251.html
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/firm-owned-family-rishi-sunaks-23630660
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/who-owns-infosys-rishi-sunak-scheme-akshata-murty-b1076499.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/10/from-non-dom-to-green-card-questions-still-facing-rishi-sunak
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-admits-having-us-green-card-while-chancellor-12585472
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/04/infosys-still-operating-russia-rishi-sunak-akshata-murty
-
If Labour have won Selby then they will walk the general election. Never thought I’d ever see that. Well done to the young lad.
They will gain a fair few in Scotland from the SNP too.
So the citizens of Selby and Ainsty now have a 25 year old Mp, fresh out of Oxford, spending his youth working as a PA advisor to the CBI and parliamentary researcher for Wes Streeting no less.
Supports Starmer's policy of keeping the two kids benefit cap and is willing and eager to do his masters bidding,
I have a Border Terrier who does the same
Welcome to Starmer's New Labour, same as the Old New Labour but with the charisma bypass to boot.
-
What pysses myself off personally with regard to the Labour Party of today isn't the fact we don't run the whole show .
In fact even with Corbyn as leader the centre and the right of the party weren't excluded , at least not in the same way or to the depths the left are now excluded today .
If the centre and right didn't want to work with Corbyn or plotted against him then that was their choice but totally excluded wasn't on the agenda .
On the back of a Labour Party Membership Card it says Democratic Socialist Party , I'll let that one hang .
So whatever we have in play today from the Labour Party is the Fiscal Responsibility narrative so as to paint the picture of the party as the one you can trust with the country's money the most , your taxes , my taxes and so forth .
All well and good , well not really , the picture painted here is to tell the electorate there's nothing in the kitty , any spending will have to be accountable , budget responsibility and so on .
This is then Labour off the hook with regards to improving things after the last 13 years or set to be 14 next year and election year .
Nowt we can do dear electorate , it's a shyte show we've inherited , not our fault .
This is totally wrong , of course they can do something like hmmm have some policies that bring in revenue to the treasury that will improve the lives of millions of people , it's their job to do something , acceptance isn't what they are supposed to do .
Of course there are limits to what can be done and of course it can't be done overnight , all this i can accept .
But I'm not having for one minute a shrug of the shoulders and acceptance which comes from the Labour Party of today .
I'd have thought getting kids born in to poverty out of it and giving them a better start in life would lead to them having better choices in life as they grow up , better job prospects , a higher degree of wealth than what they were born in to which benefits not only themselves but society in general .
That's just one example of the thinking that should be at the heart of any Labour Party .
What I'm seeing is that the Labour Party is incapable of that kind of vision OR it simply doesn't want to know and to be honest I don't know which it is which is a position I shouldn't have to contemplate .
If the Party is incapable of providing the change the country is desperate for then why should I even be remotely tempted to vote for it ? .
Why should my vote be for more of the same ? , why should my name be attached to the debacle that's potentially coming if Labour win the next GE ? .
Or are we back to the " You've no where else to go " rabbit hole once again that was thrown in our faces from New Labour .
We swallowed that shyte sandwich but I ain't so sure I'm up for second helpings .
-
The result in Uxbridge shows the mentality of the average voter.
Never mind the last 13 years of Tory misrule, Austerity, the cost of living crisis, the blatant corruption and lies during covid, Liz Truss, no I'll vote Tory coz I don't want to pay a clean air charge.
I disagree. It was a legitimate protest vote. They knew the result of the bye election wouldn't impact who was running the country. Let's see how they vote their in the GE if ULEZ is still an issue.
It's easy for us living elsewhere or wealthy middle class commentators or politicians to get on a environmentalist pedestal and criticise people for not willing to pay a clean air charge.
But if someone lives in Uxbridge and need to get to work through this new zone but can't afford to buy a new hybrid/electric car I can understand their anger.
I'm not fully against the scheme on principle but the timing is awful in the middle of a cost of living crisis and it will hit the (relatively) poorest hardest - and there is no relief in the system to mitigate the cost on the poorest.
-
The result in Uxbridge shows the mentality of the average voter.
Never mind the last 13 years of Tory misrule, Austerity, the cost of living crisis, the blatant corruption and lies during covid, Liz Truss, no I'll vote Tory coz I don't want to pay a clean air charge.
I disagree. It was a legitimate protest vote. They knew the result of the bye election wouldn't impact who was running the country. Let's see how they vote their in the GE if ULEZ is still an issue.
It's easy for us living elsewhere or wealthy middle class commentators or politicians to get on a environmentalist pedestal and criticise people for not willing to pay a clean air charge.
But if someone lives in Uxbridge and need to get to work through this new zone but can't afford to buy a new hybrid/electric car I can understand their anger.
I'm not fully against the scheme on principle but the timing is awful in the middle of a cost of living crisis and it will hit the (relatively) poorest hardest - and there is no relief in the system to mitigate the cost on the poorest.
Branton , just another aspect of Thursdays elections .
Whilst the Labour Party may well want to back slap themselves after overcoming such a huge Tory majority let's look a little deeper in to what actually happened .
At the 2019 GE , the Labour vote was 13, 858 , on Thursday it was 16, 456 .
The truth is Labour only attracted 2,598 more voters than they did in 2019 .
This on the back of Johnson's shenanigans , Truss trashing the economy , inflation and high interest rates .
Enough going on you would think to oust the Tories which admittedly they did .
The Tories lost the seat because voters stayed at home and not because Labour attracted them .
That's just not the left pointing out to the shyte sandwich on offer that's the whole electorate telling you .
-
Tyke.
When you take a break from your stream of consciousness posts, here's one for you to ponder.
What policy slate do you think Labour could offer which would a) please you and b) get the folk of Selby and Ainsty out in their droves, singing The Red Flag?
-
Branton
ULEZ was Boris Johnson's idea and it was Wolfie's mate Grant Schapps (Michael Green) who implemented the widening of the scheme to places like Uxbridge.
-
Branton
ULEZ was Boris Johnson's idea and it was Wolfie's mate Grant Schapps (Michael Green) who implemented the widening of the scheme to places like Uxbridge.
I'm not contradicting you on that.
But it's Labour under Sadiq Khan who are implementing it now and have the power over how/when/if it goes ahead. And that's what the voters see and quite legitimately voted against in a perfectly understandable protest.
-
Tyke
I agree the statistics suggest that there was very little positive voting for parties going on.
These elections were about voting against things.
In Selby and Somerset against the Tories for the reasons you outline. (Note how the Labour vote fell in Somerset and the LD vote fell in Selby).
There was some of that anti-Tory voting in Uxbridge as well but the anti-ULEZ vote won the day.
Governments lose elections and that's what will almost certainly happen next year rather than Labour winning loads of people over. Labour just represent the only available change given our flawed FPTP system.
-
.... and the sad thing about all this for me is whichever Party people align with there are typically 33 to 35 per cent who don't bother to vote at all
In the by elections the turn outs were worse than that with more than 50 per cent not bothering to vote in any of the 3
How do they expect to affect any change at all ?
-
.... and the sad thing about all this for me is whichever Party people align with there are typically 33 to 35 per cent who don't bother to vote at all
In the by elections the turn outs were worse than that with more than 50 per cent not bothering to vote in any of the 3
How do they expect to affect any change at all ?
The key problem is the FPTP system.
-
Tyke.
When you take a break from your stream of consciousness posts, here's one for you to ponder.
What policy slate do you think Labour could offer which would a) please you and b) get the folk of Selby and Ainsty out in their droves, singing The Red Flag?
Your going down our absent friend Sydney's favourite go to when his Labour ass was nailed to the floor .
Well what would you do etc etc etc ?
A none too clever tactic to deflect the argument on to me personally so as to let Labour off the hook .
I see you .
How's about Labour attract voters to get off their backsides and actually vote for them doing the job they are presumably paid to do .
How's about politicians coming up with the policies whilst raising the revenues back to them that pulls people up ? .
How's about they do their fecking job ?
If you want to exclude people in the party who may have an alternative vision , things you can tap in to but instead shut the debate down altogether and only have a party reading from the same script then little wonder you've nowt to offer anyone other than your not the Tories .
There's hardly anything in this country that's working or fit for purpose after 13 years of Tory government and still you can't offer a real alternative .
Or your running that scared of the Tories you daren't say shyte .
Either way it's not a good look but don't take my word for it Billy , check the turnout last week .
-
Tyke.
When you take a break from your stream of consciousness posts, here's one for you to ponder.
What policy slate do you think Labour could offer which would a) please you and b) get the folk of Selby and Ainsty out in their droves, singing The Red Flag?
Your going down our absent friend Sydney's favourite go to when his Labour ass was nailed to the floor .
Well what would you do etc etc etc ?
A none too clever tactic to deflect the argument on to me personally so as to let Labour off the hook .
I see you .
How's about Labour attract voters to get off their backsides and actually vote for them doing the job they are presumably paid to do .
How's about politicians coming up with the policies whilst raising the revenues back to them that pulls people up ? .
How's about they do their fecking job ?
If you want to exclude people in the party who may have an alternative vision , things you can tap in to but instead shut the debate down altogether and only have a party reading from the same script then little wonder you've nowt to offer anyone other than your not the Tories .
There's hardly anything in this country that's working or fit for purpose after 13 years of Tory government and still you can't offer a real alternative .
Or your running that scared of the Tories you daren't say shyte .
Either way it's not a good look but don't take my word for it Billy , check the turnout last week .
The irony of your first 3 paragraphs is hilarious.
-
Ulez will be unlikely to have an impact on GE votes.
At a GE voters behave differently to a by-election, and are more likely to revert to tribe.
Ulez also tend to attract opposition until set up, then people get used to it and see the benefits from the scheme.
Labour could have committed to scrappage support similar to other parts of the country, to manage the change for low income people impacted.
-
Tyke
I'm asking you to apply a bit of logical thinking to your rants.
You think Labour aren't left wing enough.
You also condemn Labour for not overturning a 20,000 Tory majority in Selby in a way that you approve of.
So I'm assuming you've thought about how you might expect Labour to both appeal to a paleo-socialist like you, and a traditionally strongly right wing seat like Selby.
No need to get angry. Just give us your thoughts.
-
Tyke
I'm asking you to apply a bit of logical thinking to your rants.
You think Labour aren't left wing enough.
You also condemn Labour for not overturning a 20,000 Tory majority in Selby in a way that you approve of.
So I'm assuming you've thought about how you might expect Labour to both appeal to a paleo-socialist like you, and a traditionally strongly right wing seat like Selby.
No need to get angry. Just give us your thoughts.
Are you aware Billy that in the 2017 GE over 19k voted for Labour in Selby as opposed to the 16k who ticked the Labour box last Thursday ? .
Yes since the boundary change in 2010 it is a normally safe Tory seat but my point is which is something you aren't willing to acknowledge is that Labour won the seat because voters stayed at home and not because as you believe Keith has steered the Labour ship to less turbulent waters given the potential vote in Selby should really be hitting nearly 20k with some light socialism going on .
I've warned about the stay away electorate many times on here and in this instance it worked in Labour's favour but it will also go against them too in my opinion at a GE .
If you are only going to appeal to Tory voters or swing voters which looks to me to be the strategy and playing the Mandelson card of " you've no where else to go " for the rest then that's not working either .
The Tory and swing voters are staying at home and you were short in Selby of what was previously achieved by Labour .
Risky strategy Billy .
-
Are you aware Billy that in the 2017 GE over 19k voted for Labour in Selby as opposed to the 16k who ticked the Labour box last Thursday ? .
Are you aware Tyke that the turnout in 2019 was 71.7% but last week only 44.8%, as is the norm when comparing by-election turnouts to General Election turnouts?
-
These could turn out to be very troubling times for a Starmer led Labour. These three Bye elections were a perfect staging post for Labour to announce to the electorate what they've been getting and what they will get under a Labour administration.
Instead they can't because the current Labour is so introverted and bland its almost as if they need to out Tory a Tory party who lost their way a long time ago. Competing for the title of who can U turn the most with a busted flush is not a winning policy and won't bring Labour the results they desire.
Even at this late stage its not too late for Starmer to see the light, transformative, aspirational and fair policies will create the daylight between them and a party who have been in power for so long they forgot what it means to lead.
If Starmer is prepared to take the risk of coming up short at the next GE then all he needs to do is carry on down this same dull, unimaginative and hesitant road he now sticks to like old glue.
If this fella is so risk averse and is willing to risk having to possibly look to a demented Ed Davie to see him over the line then it won't just be his party that suffers the consequence of these feeble tactics.
He's had his warnings, lets see if his focus groups can really mess it up for him.
Some people have the reverse Midas touch, lets look back on this in a year or so.
-
Are you aware Billy that in the 2017 GE over 19k voted for Labour in Selby as opposed to the 16k who ticked the Labour box last Thursday ? .
Are you aware Tyke that the turnout in 2019 was 71.7% but last week only 44.8%, as is the norm when comparing by-election turnouts to General Election turnouts?
Labour Party votes and turnout since the seat was created in 2010 @ General Elections .
2019 - 13,858 - 71.7 %
2017 - 19,149 - 74.1 %
2015 - 14,168 - 69.4 %
2010 - 13,297 - 71.1 %
-
Are you aware Billy that in the 2017 GE over 19k voted for Labour in Selby as opposed to the 16k who ticked the Labour box last Thursday ? .
Are you aware Tyke that the turnout in 2019 was 71.7% but last week only 44.8%, as is the norm when comparing by-election turnouts to General Election turnouts?
Labour Party votes and turnout since the seat was created in 2010 @ General Elections .
2019 - 13,858 - 71.7 %
2017 - 19,149 - 74.1 %
2015 - 14,168 - 69.4 %
2010 - 13,297 - 71.1 %
Thus underlining my point entirely, that by-elections traditionally have much lower turnouts than at General Elections. So why are you trying to draw a comparison between the two based on voter numbers instead of percentage of vote per party which is a more direct comparison?
Just for context, here's the turnout for the other two by-elections:
Uxbridge 2019: 68.5%
Uxbridge 2023: 46.2%
Somerset & Frome 2019: 75.6%
Somerset & Frome 2023: 44.2%
Are you going to compare the numbers of votes cast per party in those two as well, or realise it's a silly thing to do?
-
I'm not sure how fixed in your thinking you have to be to see Labour overturn a 20,000 majority and conclude that this means Starmer is in trouble.
Just...weird.
-
BST,
The bye-elections were decided by witholding support to register disapproval.
Both Tory and Labour votes were impacted, but as the incumbent, people had more incentive to sit at home to punish the government.
A good summary here;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/uxbridge-south-ruislip-ulez-expansion-sadiq-khan-conservative-labour/
On the issue of ULEZ, the article links through to work by Prof Phil Goodwin, which shows how the process works from previous examples.
The question for the GE in 18 months is how many will continue to withhold consent by not voting.
Labour seem to think that they can recruit more soft Tories with their "no policy" offer, than they will lose from low income and working class voters.
-
I'm not sure how fixed in your thinking you have to be to see Labour overturn a 20,000 majority and conclude that this means Starmer is in trouble.
Just...weird.
Ill tell you what is weird,
At this stage of the electoral cycle, with what must now be on record as one of the most inept, corrupt and totally incompetent administrations ever to be witnessed on these shores, to have this advantage and not be able as the official opposition to react favourably to what in all intents is a total shambles. The Labour party have managed to get to a point where they can barely muster a very limp and uninspiring response to what should be the biggest own goal ever given to a political party.
So what do Labour have to do to enthuse the electorate to consider them to be ready and equipped to take on the leadership of this country?.
A damn sight more than what they have achieved according to these latest Bye elections.
To me it looks like this saga still has legs to run and i would imagine that in his most fearful of dreams Starmer would not have envisaged this kind of very lukewarm reaction that they have received.
Plenty of head scratching for Labour party big wigs, the next 18 months will not be classed as the best of times for this underachieving Labour Leadership. This will not be what they expected, very far from it.
The whiff of fear must be palpable in Labour HQ.
-
Aye, a tiny swing to Labour of only 23.7% in Selby has probably caused palpitations.
-
So if a low turnout, protest vote or no vote at all swings your boat then fine, Im quite sure Labour will be looking at this particular constituency at the GE and seeing something quite different.
The mood music is not good and where Labour thought they would be, when you look at all three bye elections as a whole then Labour heads will be getting well and truly scratched.
If Labour can't make hay at a time like this then what happens when the going gets tough?
-
Labour's real problem is themselves. The Tories have totally messed things up but yet there's still a question mark around labour themselves for some.
They just have to avoid a huge own goal, do that and they win. Things like the ulez are an example of that so it's a good warning for them I'd say. Saying that's coming to every town and city is worrying for many people. It's really not a very left wing tax is it as it's the poorest who suffer.
This is one of the big challenges coming policy wise. The green agenda needs to be paid for, how can that be done whilst still supporting the worse off in society? Ulez zones to me don't do that.
-
I'm not sure how fixed in your thinking you have to be to see Labour overturn a 20,000 majority and conclude that this means Starmer is in trouble.
Just...weird.
Ill tell you what is weird,
At this stage of the electoral cycle, with what must now be on record as one of the most inept, corrupt and totally incompetent administrations ever to be witnessed on these shores, to have this advantage and not be able as the official opposition to react favourably to what in all intents is a total shambles. The Labour party have managed to get to a point where they can barely muster a very limp and uninspiring response to what should be the biggest own goal ever given to a political party.
So what do Labour have to do to enthuse the electorate to consider them to be ready and equipped to take on the leadership of this country?.
A damn sight more than what they have achieved according to these latest Bye elections.
To me it looks like this saga still has legs to run and i would imagine that in his most fearful of dreams Starmer would not have envisaged this kind of very lukewarm reaction that they have received.
Plenty of head scratching for Labour party big wigs, the next 18 months will not be classed as the best of times for this underachieving Labour Leadership. This will not be what they expected, very far from it.
The whiff of fear must be palpable in Labour HQ.
DD
I genuinely don't get you.
Labour are consistently 20% ahead in the polls. That sort of lead, this close to an election, happens very rarely in politics. Once or twice since WWII.
They've just overturned a seat with a majority of 20,000. Again, between Con and Lab, that sort of change happens maybe once in a generation.
And you call this "limp".
Regardless of what you think about policies, what exactly would make you think Labour was doing well on the numbers.
-
I'm not sure how fixed in your thinking you have to be to see Labour overturn a 20,000 majority and conclude that this means Starmer is in trouble.
Just...weird.
Ill tell you what is weird,
At this stage of the electoral cycle, with what must now be on record as one of the most inept, corrupt and totally incompetent administrations ever to be witnessed on these shores, to have this advantage and not be able as the official opposition to react favourably to what in all intents is a total shambles. The Labour party have managed to get to a point where they can barely muster a very limp and uninspiring response to what should be the biggest own goal ever given to a political party.
So what do Labour have to do to enthuse the electorate to consider them to be ready and equipped to take on the leadership of this country?.
A damn sight more than what they have achieved according to these latest Bye elections.
To me it looks like this saga still has legs to run and i would imagine that in his most fearful of dreams Starmer would not have envisaged this kind of very lukewarm reaction that they have received.
Plenty of head scratching for Labour party big wigs, the next 18 months will not be classed as the best of times for this underachieving Labour Leadership. This will not be what they expected, very far from it.
The whiff of fear must be palpable in Labour HQ.
DD
I genuinely don't get you.
Labour are consistently 20% ahead in the polls. That sort of lead, this close to an election, happens very rarely in politics. Once or twice since WWII.
They've just overturned a seat with a majority of 20,000. Again, between Con and Lab, that sort of change happens maybe once in a generation.
And you call this "limp".
Regardless of what you think about policies, what exactly would make you think Labour was doing well on the numbers.
BST, you keep quoting the Selby result, is this going to be typical at the next GE? we have all seen protest votes before, would you put your house on Labour being able to repeat that again in the GE, i know i wouldn't.
A 20% lead for Labour in the polls, we are talking about results against possibly the most inept governing party ever! if i was Starmer i'd of expected a better night on Thurs across the board, for a party expecting to wipe the floor at the next GE these results were not ground breaking, and will be giving many the impression that Labour should be so far ahead the betting should be suspended now, but that's not the case is it.
As it gets closer to the GE i've no doubt many Labour activists will be uneasy with progress across the board, there seems to me an air of suspicion around the party, in the rough and tumble of an election campaign proper this air of uncertainty will give all the lags something to bite into, i just don't get the impression that Starmer and his very safe and no committal policy will hold up.
And all this is whilst we have a gravely wounded and limping beast in government!
The optics just don't ring right for me, we will no doubt find out in due course but its not going to be the walkover it should be. I get the impression that the electorate don't want warmed up, stale and limp failed policies, regurgitated. What new and transformative path is Labour demonstrating ? i just don't see it.
-
DD
Do you want to point me to the last time a party came 160 seats behind the winners in a UK General Election and won the next one?
You are constantly ignoring all the historical precedents of just how hard it us to make the swing from the absolute mauling that Labour got in 2019 to where they are now.
There are plenty of examples of very poor Government performances which didn't lead to this level of swing.
In 1956, the Tory Govt took us into one of the biggest humiliations in our national history at Suez. They won the next election comfortably.
In 1974, the Heath Govt had totally lost control of the economy. Inflation was rocketing. We had the 3 day week and blackouts. Labour made only the most marginal gains at the next election.
In 1979, we'd just had the Winter of Discontent with bodies going unburied. Thatcher only got a 5% and a 56 seat swing.
As things currently stand, Labour is on target for a 15% swing and a 150 seat swing.
If you know your politics, you'll know that sort of thing happens maybe once every century. And yet you still think they are failing. I don't understand what you would consider to be success.
-
DD
Do you want to point me to the last time a party came 160 seats behind the winners in a UK General Election and won the next one?
You are constantly ignoring all the historical precedents of just how hard it us to make the swing from the absolute mauling that Labour got in 2019 to where they are now.
There are plenty of examples of very poor Government performances which didn't lead to this level of swing.
In 1956, the Tory Govt took us into one of the biggest humiliations in our national history at Suez. They won the next election comfortably.
In 1974, the Heath Govt had totally lost control of the economy. Inflation was rocketing. We had the 3 day week and blackouts. Labour made only the most marginal gains at the next election.
In 1979, we'd just had the Winter of Discontent with bodies going unburied. Thatcher only got a 5% and a 56 seat swing.
As things currently stand, Labour is on target for a 15% swing and a 150 seat swing.
If you know your politics, you'll know that sort of thing happens maybe once every century. And yet you still think they are failing. I don't understand what you would consider to be success.
How's about we can vote for some substance rather than a red rosette ?
Or is that too much to contemplate ? .
-
Another day, another misdirection.
It makes no difference how election voting moved in the past, it is simply not relevant to a GE in late 2024.
The key variable will be the manipulation of social media feeds in the 3 month run up to the GE.
We know this from the Cambridge Analytica influence during brexit and the later GE.
Fixating on historic swings is a diversion from the real issues.
How many additional votes did a party add, and how persistent are those numbers from soft support through to a GE?
Depending upon turnout, and the prevalence of tactical voting, a binary swing is less likely in future elections.
-
I'm sure that word salad means something to you Albie, but I'll be honest, I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Beyond your insistence that nothing the current version of Labour does can be any good. And your refusal to engage with any data that goes against what you want to be true.
-
BST, in precise words, what are the things that lead you to believe that Starmer will be a good Prime Minister?
-
Labour's real problem is themselves. The Tories have totally messed things up but yet there's still a question mark around labour themselves for some.
They just have to avoid a huge own goal, do that and they win. Things like the ulez are an example of that so it's a good warning for them I'd say. Saying that's coming to every town and city is worrying for many people. It's really not a very left wing tax is it as it's the poorest who suffer.
This is one of the big challenges coming policy wise. The green agenda needs to be paid for, how can that be done whilst still supporting the worse off in society? Ulez zones to me don't do that.
You are right BFYP.
ULEZ in London was a Tory idea (brought in by Johnson when he was mayor) to have cleaner air in London. It's extension to Uxbridge was a Tory idea (mandated by Shapps to Khan in order to get a government loan to keep the council running during covid) but it's what cost Labour the election.
The challenge for Labour is how to combat false impressions of their policies in the media. Because they will always get more criticism than the Tories by a Tory sympathetic press/media.
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
Who are these many of us?
Are you the spokesman for them?
Have you got any evidence?
Or is it just a few on the off topic that are more right wing than Stanley Matthews !
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
Nonsense.
There's something very fundamental about a FPTP democracy. You have to attract enough votes to get a majority if you want to be in power. That means reaching out to people beyond the committed core of your party. That's what Starmer is doing.
For the record, I think he is going TOO far, just as I think Blair did. But I'd rather have a compromising Labour party in power than an ideologically pure one in opposition.
Saying those compromises means they are no different to the Tories is lazy. But it's what those on both the Left and the Right who dislike the idea of a compromising Labour party in power will always say. Because it confirms what they want to be true.
-
Meanwhile, those on the Left who don't want a Starmer led Labour party in power might do well to remember what the alternative is.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1683498583117508611
They are the same people who didn't want a Brown led Labour party to win in 2010, and put us on the road to having truly evil people like Braverman in Government.
-
Say what you like about Starmer, yes he comes across as a little dull and doesn't have the charisma of gits like Johnson, but he's super intelligent and knows exactly what he needs to do to get Labour into power.
And he's doing it, bit by bit and if that upsets some Labour purists then tough, you can't change the game if you're not on the pitch
-
Meanwhile, those on the Left who don't want a Starmer led Labour party in power might do well to remember what the alternative is.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1683498583117508611
They are the same people who didn't want a Brown led Labour party to win in 2010, and put us on the road to having truly evil people like Braverman in Government.
[/quote
Billy , Starmer's just announced he isn't going to lift the 2 child benefit threshold which has placed 800k kids in to poverty
People in glass houses ....
-
Tyke.
Come back after 5 years of a Labour Govt and let's talk about child poverty numbers.
Deal?
Or you can sit on the sidelines saying "There's no difference between them" and have another 5 years of this shower of shite, and blame everyone else when child poverty increases.
Your call.
-
So the plan is to lie to people in order to win votes, then to do the opposite of what was promised when the GE is won?
The promise to keep the 2 child benefit cap is a clever strategic lie in your book.
Which of the policy shifts do you think are just tactical moves to gain advantage?
What about the promise to keep to Tory spending plans, and the idea that the green new deal can be deferred, in support of "fiscal rules" that have no basis in modern economics.
The Tories have been rightly condemned for their disastrous austerity fetish.
Reeves "fiscal rules" are austerity under a different name, with no policies directed to increasing revenues to match existing demands of cost of living pressures.
No-one is saying that they are the same, but if you do not support discredited neo-liberal economics neither party currently offers a viable programme.
-
Tyke.
Come back after 5 years of a Labour Govt and let's talk about child poverty numbers.
Deal?
Or you can sit on the sidelines saying "There's no difference between them" and have another 5 years of this shower of shite, and blame everyone else when child poverty increases.
Your call.
Labour are currently wooing Tory donors. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-14/labour-invites-tory-donors-to-breakfast-in-bid-to-woo-city-elite?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Do you anticipate these donors will support the kind of redistributive policy that is needed to reduce child poverty? Are they just going to switch allegiance to the Labour Party for nowt in return?
People are responding to what Labour are doing and saying ("there's no money left" is the latest line shadow ministers were trotting out the other day. "no hope is better than false hope", says Wes Streeting). You are responding to what you imagine Labour will do, based on what the last Labour government did 20 years ago when the world was completely different. So who is really only confirming what they want to be true in this thread?
For what it's worth, I think Labour will win at a canter because the Tories have imploded. Managerial competence and nothing else will get them over the line. My hope is that Labour falls short of a majority and has to form an alliance that curbs some of their nastier right wing element, because my genuine fear is that a Labour government in its current form will do nothing but open the door for a Braverman-led (or someone similar) far right ultranationalist government in 2029.
-
Tyke.
Come back after 5 years of a Labour Govt and let's talk about child poverty numbers.
Deal?
Or you can sit on the sidelines saying "There's no difference between them" and have another 5 years of this shower of shite, and blame everyone else when child poverty increases.
Your call.
Labour are currently wooing Tory donors. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-14/labour-invites-tory-donors-to-breakfast-in-bid-to-woo-city-elite?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Do you anticipate these donors will support the kind of redistributive policy that is needed to reduce child poverty? Are they just going to switch allegiance to the Labour Party for nowt in return?
People are responding to what Labour are doing and saying ("there's no money left" is the latest line shadow ministers were trotting out the other day. "no hope is better than false hope", says Wes Streeting). You are responding to what you imagine Labour will do, based on what the last Labour government did 20 years ago when the world was completely different. So who is really only confirming what they want to be true in this thread?
For what it's worth, I think Labour will win at a canter because the Tories have imploded. Managerial competence and nothing else will get them over the line. My hope is that Labour falls short of a majority and has to form an alliance that curbs some of their nastier right wing element, because my genuine fear is that a Labour government in its current form will do nothing but open the door for a Braverman-led (or someone similar) far right ultranationalist government in 2029.
MM
You sound very much like me c.1996. I still have a copy of an email I wrote to a friend ranting that Blair would so disappoint the people who voted for him that Michael Portillo would sweep to power in 2001-2 heading the English National Party.
-
So the plan is to lie to people in order to win votes, then to do the opposite of what was promised when the GE is won?
The promise to keep the 2 child benefit cap is a clever strategic lie in your book.
Which of the policy shifts do you think are just tactical moves to gain advantage?
What about the promise to keep to Tory spending plans, and the idea that the green new deal can be deferred, in support of "fiscal rules" that have no basis in modern economics.
The Tories have been rightly condemned for their disastrous austerity fetish.
Reeves "fiscal rules" are austerity under a different name, with no policies directed to increasing revenues to match existing demands of cost of living pressures.
No-one is saying that they are the same, but if you do not support discredited neo-liberal economics neither party currently offers a viable programme.
Albie, with reference to your first paragraph above, I have seen that suggested on this forum in the past.
-
Here is a write up of the recent Labour policy review;
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/07/23/no-change-no-hope-starmer-criticised-after-rejecting-calls-for-bolder-policies-at-labour-policy-meeting-amid-union-fury/
You know it's a crock of shyte when BST comes on to tell us all how clever it is...unless you are a socialist, or a trade unionist, or vulnerable dependent upon benefits etc.
In fact, anyone who the Labour Party is supposed to be for!
-
Albie.
I'll make the same challenge to you that I did to Tyke.
Come back here after five years of a Labour Govt and let's talk about child poverty.
If the numbers have not come down significantly, I will apologise profusely. I assume you will do the same if they have?
Deal?
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
Who are these many of us?
Are you the spokesman for them?
Have you got any evidence?
Or is it just a few on the off topic that are more right wing than Stanley Matthews !
Me right wing? I was a Trade Unionist and a socialist before you were born, sunshine, and there lies the crux of the matter, because the modern Labour Party stands for none of those things, or for the working class in general.
What's your opinion on Starmer's support for the cap on child benefits?
What's your opinion on Mick Lynch and the current striking unions?
Give us a bit of substance to back up your neo-liberalist views.
-
Albie.
I'll make the same challenge to you that I did to Tyke.
Come back here after five years of a Labour Govt and let's talk about child poverty.
If the numbers have not come down significantly, I will apologise profusely. I assume you will do the same if they have?
Deal?
Sorry Billy I wouldn't trust Keith's figures or any government for that matter .
So I'll offer this one up , after five years of a Labour government with a majority I want to see less foodbanks than there are McDonald's outlets .
That in my opinion is a fair measuring tool .
Deal ?
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
Who are these many of us?
Are you the spokesman for them?
Have you got any evidence?
Or is it just a few on the off topic that are more right wing than Stanley Matthews !
Me right wing? I was a Trade Unionist and a socialist before you were born, sunshine, and there lies the crux of the matter, because the modern Labour Party stands for none of those things, or for the working class in general.
What's your opinion on Starmer's support for the cap on child benefits?
What's your opinion on Mick Lynch and the current striking unions?
Give us a bit of substance to back up your neo-liberalist views.
Steve .
The times coming if it's not already gone for people such as ourselves to stop pinning our hopes that the Labour Party is ever going to be the one that it was founded to be .
Under Keith it's moved itself even further away than it did under Blair , if Dennis Skinner was still around Keith would have thrown him out of the Party too , not even Blair would have dared do what Keith has done to the left since he became leader .
There's very little to be gained by getting angry about the Labour Party anymore what we need is a new party and concentrate our efforts on that and fuq Labour .
I'm not talking about some small left wing outfit here , here today gone tomorrow of which we've seen plenty before .
I'm talking about a coming together of everyone , Mick Lynch , Dave Ward , Eddie Dempsey and the other trade unions , these people are now well known , the daft buggas trying to discredit them on tv have no idea just how much free publicity they are giving to these lads .
George Monibot is another , these people have the face and skills to take people along with them .
The number of left YouTube channels is another , Novara Media , Robespierre , Not The Andrew Marr Show to mention just three .
We are talking about people here and many others who are comfortable in front of the camera , articulate , intelligent and totally relatable .
The kind of people who can energise and motivate the millions of people who desperately need support and Parliamentary representation .
Of course we aren't going to agree on everything but we've more chance of solving our differing opinions under this umbrella than with the red rosette mob .
The timing of this may also work very well too .
When this Labour Government is in office and the people see just what it is they've actually elected .
That I feel personally is the time to form this new party and as I say I'm not thinking small here I'm thinking way way bigger than we've seen before , candidates actually elected to Parliament and way bigger than UKIP ever was .
I know this has got spoken about at Mick Lynch and Dave Ward level because I've listened to a couple of Podcasts and to be honest they are a bit lukewarm on it but I put that down to they've a bit going on at the minute which is understandable .
In my opinion all it needs is for all the left jigsaw pieces that are out there to come together under one umbrella and well away from the Labour Party's tentacles .
The days of vote for em on Thursday and fight em on Friday are long gone .
-
Tyke
I'm not sure where you were hiding in 2019.
The type of people you're pining for ran the Labour Party then.
Ran it to the lowest opinion polls ratings in a century and the worst election performance since the 1930s.
You had the Labour party you wanted. It was a car crash. You might just have the humility to reflect on that while the current party gets on with actually, y'know winning an election.
-
Tyke a new party would make no difference, its clear this country will not support a left wing government, in my lifetime the only times labour has faired well consistently is when it has been well as conservative as the tories, im not sure really what starner can do if he does what you want him to do he will lose the voters that swop and change there votes
-
Tyke
I'm not sure where you were hiding in 2019.
The type of people you're pining for ran the Labour Party then.
Ran it to the lowest opinion polls ratings in a century and the worst election performance since the 1930s.
You had the Labour party you wanted. It was a car crash. You might just have the humility to reflect on that while the current party gets on with actually, y'know winning an election.
Winning an election, and then what?
-
Tyke
I'm not sure where you were hiding in 2019.
The type of people you're pining for ran the Labour Party then.
Ran it to the lowest opinion polls ratings in a century and the worst election performance since the 1930s.
You had the Labour party you wanted. It was a car crash. You might just have the humility to reflect on that while the current party gets on with actually, y'know winning an election.
Winning an election, and then what?
That was the lazy sort of stuff that I used to say in 1996.
Then governing more competently and fairly than this bunch of barrow boys and spivs have done. Over a long period. To make the country stronger and fairer than it is now.
That's what Labour did from 97 to 10.
Was it perfect? Of course not.
Did I agree with it all? Of course not.
But what was the alternative? That's the question that you and Tyke dodge every time.
-
All we have right now is that the alternative might be a little less shit. But it could just as easily be a little more shit.
I’m becoming more apolitical each day. I don’t feel like I want to vote for anyone.
-
All we have right now is that the alternative might be a little less shit. But it could just as easily be a little more shit.
I’m becoming more apolitical each day. I don’t feel like I want to vote for anyone.
Direct and to the point,
It looks like your opinion could be the view of a great many of the electorate, the enthusiasm to vote for either viable option could not be any less, shocking position for the country to be in.
What ever happened to competent and strong leadership? the system really has failed. I never believed it in the past but a major reorganisation of our governorship is desperately required, we need new ideas to be given the opportunity to be brought to fruition, not this rehashed nonsense from two parties fighting over the fag end of a rehashed pile of poo that we now have and look to be having in a slightly regurgitated form in the very near future.
We need a new and relevant PR system to weed out this same think mentality from two middle of the road, going nowhere, achieving nothing parties.
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
Who are these many of us?
Are you the spokesman for them?
Have you got any evidence?
Or is it just a few on the off topic that are more right wing than Stanley Matthews !
Me right wing? I was a Trade Unionist and a socialist before you were born, sunshine, and there lies the crux of the matter, because the modern Labour Party stands for none of those things, or for the working class in general.
What's your opinion on Starmer's support for the cap on child benefits?
What's your opinion on Mick Lynch and the current striking unions?
Give us a bit of substance to back up your neo-liberalist views.
Each paragraph at a time.
Firstly,I went to my first Rovers game in 1970(you can have a stab at my age there if you like),so hats off to you you are probably the oldest posters on this forum. I presumed your posting friends were just making absolutely hilarious jokes about it.
On that point,if you want to call me sunshine,you won't have a problem with me calling you sunset.
On the second paragraph,having grown up in a single parent family(non working mother), with two siblings,again you have have a wild stab in the dark about how I feel about that one.
3rd paragraph. One of reasons I am proud to be a Doncastrian is our long history of union activity,from the likes of Rodney NUPE/UNISON to some of the great locals that put so many hours into the NUR/RMT. Every union that has been on strike during this 13 year shit show has my 100% backing.
Final paragraph. I'm confused about this one,as I can't work out if it's one of 3 reasons you posted.
A) You're trying to insult me
B) You read the room completely wrong
C)You don't really understand the significance of Neo liberalism.
Guess which ones I'm taking a wild stab at?
-
Iberian - I too assumed that you must be really, really young - but I only had the things you wrote to go on.
I stand corrected.
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
Who are these many of us?
Are you the spokesman for them?
Have you got any evidence?
Or is it just a few on the off topic that are more right wing than Stanley Matthews !
Me right wing? I was a Trade Unionist and a socialist before you were born, sunshine, and there lies the crux of the matter, because the modern Labour Party stands for none of those things, or for the working class in general.
What's your opinion on Starmer's support for the cap on child benefits?
What's your opinion on Mick Lynch and the current striking unions?
Give us a bit of substance to back up your neo-liberalist views.
Each paragraph at a time.
Firstly,I went to my first Rovers game in 1970(you can have a stab at my age there if you like),so hats off to you you are probably the oldest posters on this forum. I presumed your posting friends were just making absolutely hilarious jokes about it.
On that point,if you want to call me sunshine,you won't have a problem with me calling you sunset.
On the second paragraph,having grown up in a single parent family(non working mother), with two siblings,again you have have a wild stab in the dark about how I feel about that one.
3rd paragraph. One of reasons I am proud to be a Doncastrian is our long history of union activity,from the likes of Rodney NUPE/UNISON to some of the great locals that put so many hours into the NUR/RMT. Every union that has been on strike during this 13 year shit show has my 100% backing.
Final paragraph. I'm confused about this one,as I can't work out if it's one of 3 reasons you posted.
A) You're trying to insult me
B) You read the room completely wrong
C)You don't really understand the significance of Neo liberalism.
Guess which ones I'm taking a wild stab at?
Quite a good post, that, which leads me to ask the question, considering your history, why would you support an upper middle class neo-liberalist tw*t like Starmer?
The fact that he's trying to expunge the left from his party tells you everything about his political stance.
As regards the people I'm describing as "us", take a good look at all the posts and replies on this thread.
-
Iberian - I too assumed that you must be really, really young - but I only had the things you wrote to go on.
I stand corrected.
Ha,ha,ha.
No problem Belts.
I always had trolling and likes down as being the domain of spotty adolescents.
Incredible really.
-
Iberian - I too assumed that you must be really, really young - but I only had the things you wrote to go on.
I stand corrected.
Ha,ha,ha.
No problem Belts.
I always had trolling and likes down as being the domain of spotty adolescents.
Incredible really.
Now I’m thinking you’re really, really young again.
It was either going to be ‘troll’ or ‘bingo’, wasn’t it?
-
Statement from the former chair of Copeland Labour on his resignation;
https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FF11cvnyWAAAlPiX.jpg
and page 2;
https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FF11cvnGXoAExn6z.jpg
So, Keith reckons re-tweeting a post from a journo is a disciplinary offence!
The list of Keith's swivels is quite long, some of which lasted less than a fortnight from support to rejection.
About as trustworthy as a wounded rattlesnake, on current form.
-
I’m from Selby.
The young Labour lad did very well because outside of the town itself, it is a pretty standard rural conservative sort of constituency. Particularly the Tadcaster area with affluent villages around there. The boundary even extends to near Harrogate!
I know it was a low turnout but I never thought I’d see it become Labour. A Corbyn-led Labour would certainly not get a sniff in seats like this.
That last paragraph confirms what many of us suspect, NC. That Starmer's Labour Party is no different to the Tories.
Who are these many of us?
Are you the spokesman for them?
Have you got any evidence?
Or is it just a few on the off topic that are more right wing than Stanley Matthews !
Me right wing? I was a Trade Unionist and a socialist before you were born, sunshine, and there lies the crux of the matter, because the modern Labour Party stands for none of those things, or for the working class in general.
What's your opinion on Starmer's support for the cap on child benefits?
What's your opinion on Mick Lynch and the current striking unions?
Give us a bit of substance to back up your neo-liberalist views.
Each paragraph at a time.
Firstly,I went to my first Rovers game in 1970(you can have a stab at my age there if you like),so hats off to you you are probably the oldest posters on this forum. I presumed your posting friends were just making absolutely hilarious jokes about it.
On that point,if you want to call me sunshine,you won't have a problem with me calling you sunset.
On the second paragraph,having grown up in a single parent family(non working mother), with two siblings,again you have have a wild stab in the dark about how I feel about that one.
3rd paragraph. One of reasons I am proud to be a Doncastrian is our long history of union activity,from the likes of Rodney NUPE/UNISON to some of the great locals that put so many hours into the NUR/RMT. Every union that has been on strike during this 13 year shit show has my 100% backing.
Final paragraph. I'm confused about this one,as I can't work out if it's one of 3 reasons you posted.
A) You're trying to insult me
B) You read the room completely wrong
C)You don't really understand the significance of Neo liberalism.
Guess which ones I'm taking a wild stab at?
Quite a good post, that, which leads me to ask the question, considering your history, why would you support an upper middle class neo-liberalist tw*t like Starmer?
The fact that he's trying to expunge the left from his party tells you everything about his political stance.
As regards the people I'm describing as "us", take a good look at all the posts and replies on this thread.
Christ SS.
We're rhe absolute f#£k did you get the impression I support Starmer from?
I would however prefer to chop my member of with a rusty axe than see this bunch of neo whatever remain in power.
-
Iberian - I too assumed that you must be really, really young - but I only had the things you wrote to go on.
I stand corrected.
Ha,ha,ha.
No problem Belts.
I always had trolling and likes down as being the domain of spotty adolescents.
Incredible really.
Now I’m thinking you’re really, really young again.
It was either going to be ‘troll’ or ‘bingo’, wasn’t it?
Oh you've tittled me pink.
Just one thing tho fella.
If you're going to follow me about on here,I've got to inform you it's unrequited .
-
Tyke
I'm not sure where you were hiding in 2019.
The type of people you're pining for ran the Labour Party then.
Ran it to the lowest opinion polls ratings in a century and the worst election performance since the 1930s.
You had the Labour party you wanted. It was a car crash. You might just have the humility to reflect on that while the current party gets on with actually, y'know winning an election.
Winning an election, and then what?
That was the lazy sort of stuff that I used to say in 1996.
Then governing more competently and fairly than this bunch of barrow boys and spivs have done. Over a long period. To make the country stronger and fairer than it is now.
That's what Labour did from 97 to 10.
Was it perfect? Of course not.
Did I agree with it all? Of course not.
But what was the alternative? That's the question that you and Tyke dodge every time.
Pinning your faith in today's problems getting fixed by yesterday's solutions which weren't really fixed either .
Completely different country today than 1997 Billy .
What's coming from the Labour Party and one your happy to go along with is that if the Tories don't like it then neither do you , that seems to be how this goes .
It doesn't much matter to me whether Labour wins or not .
It's like watching an end of season 0-0 draw between two teams with nothing to play for and I haven't an interest in either of them .
-
Iberian - I too assumed that you must be really, really young - but I only had the things you wrote to go on.
I stand corrected.
Ha,ha,ha.
No problem Belts.
I always had trolling and likes down as being the domain of spotty adolescents.
Incredible really.
Now I’m thinking you’re really, really young again.
It was either going to be ‘troll’ or ‘bingo’, wasn’t it?
Oh you've tittled me pink.
Just one thing tho fella.
If you're going to follow me about on here,I've got to inform you it's unrequited .
I think I’ve directly responded to you in about three different exchanges.
You have a really high opinion about yourself, don’t you?
But, yes, I should know better than to respond to you at all.
I’ll try harder.
-
Not at all fella.
It's just that I have very,very low opinion of certain individuals.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/03/uxbridge-brexit-tories-anti-green-labour-local
Very good, prophetic article relating to why Labour managed to get it completely wrong in the Uxbridge bye election.
Let this be a warning to Starmer come the GE, people are now waking up to his almost dictator like attitude to how the party manages its prospective candidates, I'm very surprised that at a local level the party has not banged heads more with HQ over its constant interference with who gets selected and who stands for a local area.
Locals don't want HQ imposing candidates on them, especially when the candidate is a wet through and through Starmer disciple who has no experience of the real world outside the confines of Labour activism and internal party business.
Nobody wants these political freaks being imposed on their local constituency.
-
Good post dd.
I’m really hoping Labour win.
-
It has been happening all over the country.
Wakefield, Copeland and others follow the same pattern.
Wolverhampton West is the latest;
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/08/03/obituary-labour-party-democracy-in-wolverhampton-west/
Keith is an authoritarian, and sees local democracy as a threat.
-
What would be very interesting to see is what the authoritarian does if he gets into power and the sheeple begin to find their voices, what's he going to do then?
I get the feeling that his carefully coiffured plan of saying nothing and agreeing with everything until elected will come crashing down with extreme consequences for the nation.
Beware hungry wolves in sheep's cast offs.
-
Labour's own advisors now pulling up the drawbridge on austerity Rachel Reeves and her crackpot "fiscal rules";
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-fiscal-rules-investment-jim-oneill-b2388449.html
When will the penny drop with team Keith that their shadow chancellor has not got a clue!
-
On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/
Don't stand on a picket line, though!
-
On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/
Don't stand on a picket line, though!
With that headline Open democracy have written every Tory candidates election pamphlet from now until the election proper.
Not a good look for Chairman Starmer.
I must admit, this joker is performing a very good impression of a greed, grabby MP who's out to fill his boots asap.
Looking like all the same, more every day.
-
On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/
Don't stand on a picket line, though!
Including hospitality tickets at Donny races I see.
A big political question for the country is: What are Sir Keir Starmer's principles? Well seems we have a part answer.
The more I hear about this bloke the less I like. Troubling. Very troubling.
-
On it goes, the latest in benefiting from sponsorship culture;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/
Don't stand on a picket line, though!
What kind of Arsenal season ticket holder would turn up at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium unless it was for The North London Derby ?
-
Rachel Reeves in the Torygraph on what she won't do;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/no-wealth-taxes-labour-rachel-reeves/
Chasing the high net worth demographic with all her might.
-
Rachel Reeves in the Torygraph on what she won't do;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/26/no-wealth-taxes-labour-rachel-reeves/
Chasing the high net worth demographic with all her might.
So Labour now believes in Trickle Down Economics ?
How wonderfully 1980's .
-
Getting thrown out of the Labour Party under Keith is becoming a badge of honour .
Thank the Lord I'm free and liberated from the party that sucks on Thatcher's nipple and drinks her poisoned milk .
-
I think it's worse than that, Tyke.
Reeves and Keith have given up on redistribution of wealth, and in doing so have only very limited options for the redistribution of opportunity.
They accept that the allocation of resources will continue in the same way that it has under Tory austerity, with their own austerity package rebranded as "fiscal rules".
It is a no hope message to those without capital or asset wealth....a promise of permanent exclusion, for themselves and their kids.
Hoping to raise living standards without a plan for redistribution is just wishful thinking.
Reeves reckons growth will deliver improvements alone.
This idea is totally illogical, as it will actually funnel a greater proportion of resources to the asset class, and away from the working poor.
It always has this effect.
The worst thing is that it is all to gain support from people that a real Labour Party should be opposing.
Just look at the interests lining up to buy support at the Labour conference fringe;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-party-conference-greenwashing-weapons-boeing-palantir-babcock/
Arms dealers, fossil fuel lobbyists pushing carbon capture distractions, spytech innovators.....all people Labour can do business with.
Palantir are the US spytech company interested in the goldmine that is NHS data, and support the Trump campaign in the US.
A proper rogues gallery of vested interests looking to buy influence in the event of a Starmer government.
-
Oh, we're the cream of the real labour party,
we support the working classes
we f**ked up big time at the vote
..... johnson handed us our arses
-
Letter to Starmer from leading economists pointing out that the stance of Labour is outside mainstream economics;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-policies-benefit-cuts-reeves-b2399406.html
Kate Pickett, one of the signatories, gives her explanation here:
Why I joined 70 economists and human rights experts urging Labour to change course | Kate Pickett | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/keir-starmer-economic-labour-tories-austerity-britain
Sadly, Rachel Reeves was not found a less demanding role in the shadow cabinet reshuffle, so will continue to spout ignorant drivel for the immediate future.
-
Albie.
I agree that Labour is being way too cautious in terms of ideal economics.
But as ever, if your going to make a long term difference, you've got to be in power for the long term.
And that means looking at the politics.
Like it or not, Labour was seen as being shambolic on economic fundamentals by the electorate in 2019. They weren't, but they didn't help themselves with a car crash of a campaign, chucking in uncosted promises on the hoof. In polling, only 20% of the electorate thought Labour had the best economic policies.
And that's the field we are playing on. Labour's best way of losing next year is to revive those memories. And though I don't agree with Labour's timidity, I understand it for that very reason. Because in politics, it doesn't matter if you're right in theory if you are in Opposition in practice.
There's a 15-20 year job to do to put right the economic disaster of the this Government. Doing that requires first and foremost that Labour demonstrate that can be trusted. I wish it wasn't the case, but that's where we are.
I'll say again. Anyone on the Left who genuinely and honestly believes that any Labour Government would choose to increase child poverty for example is away with the faries. But the Corbynistas are absolutely convinced that is the case. I wish they'd look in the mirror and ask themselves why they do that.
-
BST,
It is simply not a matter of being "way too cautious", it is about a fundamental error of economics.
Reeves believes that her made up fiscal rules are paramount, and behind that no consideration of raising finances, or policies of redistribution are allowed.
This is incorrect, as the economists point out.
There is no evidence to support the idea that public popularity is in line with these mistakes.
On issues of public ownership, wealth taxation and electoral reform there is widespread public approval.
From these basic errors, because Labour will not identify funding mechanisms to support reforming policies, no costed program is possible.
It is the worst of all worlds to refuse to raise funds for investment in change, then refuse to set out policies for change because funding is not identified.
If Labour do not wish to be seen as transformative, the implication is that they intend to offer better management, rather than reform of the system.
Reeves view that "growth" will deliver change possibilities is away with the fairies.....GDP growth from unspecified policies, a measure of turnover without explanation of the sectors to deliver that growth, or the contribution that it will make to finances is just wishful thinking.
The default position is austerity, in support of the neo-liberal political economy.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/08/austerity-is-labours-choice
The idea that any party can look to a 15/20 year program is nonsense in the age of climate breakdown.
The entire economic applecart will be overturned, and by the end of the next parliament everything will be directed by this.
-
Did you put any of this to Corbyn, Albie?
All this is irrelevant unless you can guarantee a tory loss at the next GE, is it something you would be willing to put your house on Albie?
-
Albie.
I agree that Labour is being way too cautious in terms of ideal economics.
But as ever, if your going to make a long term difference, you've got to be in power for the long term.
And that means looking at the politics.
Like it or not, Labour was seen as being shambolic on economic fundamentals by the electorate in 2019. They weren't, but they didn't help themselves with a car crash of a campaign, chucking in uncosted promises on the hoof. In polling, only 20% of the electorate thought Labour had the best economic policies.
And that's the field we are playing on. Labour's best way of losing next year is to revive those memories. And though I don't agree with Labour's timidity, I understand it for that very reason. Because in politics, it doesn't matter if you're right in theory if you are in Opposition in practice.
There's a 15-20 year job to do to put right the economic disaster of the this Government. Doing that requires first and foremost that Labour demonstrate that can be trusted. I wish it wasn't the case, but that's where we are.
I'll say again. Anyone on the Left who genuinely and honestly believes that any Labour Government would choose to increase child poverty for example is away with the faries. But the Corbynistas are absolutely convinced that is the case. I wish they'd look in the mirror and ask themselves why they do that.
So you are pinning your hopes on Starmer coming through as a liar then ?
To be fair that narrative looks promising given his history .
-
Sorry Syd, you think it is irrelevant that Reeves is promising austerity from a Labour government?
Blimey, that takes the biscuit!
-
Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from. If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.
Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.
-
What I find most fascinating about the Corbynistas is the way they are so laser-focussed in the consistency with which they excoriate Labour politicians as traitors to the cause when they espouse fiscally responsible policies.
You MUST remember how angry they got over this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/labourlist.org/2016/03/mcdonnell-promises-to-balance-the-books-with-fiscal-credibility-rule/%3famp
No. Me neither.
-
Point being BFYP, there isn't that much difference on content. It's just that Jeremy was a God-like omniscient creature who could run a fiscally responsible Government that would also eliminate poverty in a month. While Starmer and Reeves are obviously class traitors.
-
Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from. If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.
Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.
There must be shed loads you don't see pud, the suffering and starvation of the poor under tory Austerity, yet you continued to vote for them, go lecture someone else.
-
Sorry Syd, you think it is irrelevant that Reeves is promising austerity from a Labour government?
Blimey, that takes the biscuit!
Keep it in context Albie, I said it was irrelevant if you can't get the tories out, will you put your house on that happening or not?
-
When people start talking about Corbyn, you know they are trying to distract from the issue.
Constantly referring to the past to avoid dealing with the present proposition.
Usually it shows that they have no viable argument to put.
It is not about some kind of personality cult, it is about the policy framework for a change of government.
The people in charge of this are Keith and Rachel, so their positioning is important.
Pulling the strings behind the scenes are the discredited figures of new Labour, Blair, Campbell and Mandelson.
BST rails about 13 years of Tory austerity, and is correct to do so.
But when Reeves pitches exactly the same formula, after taking advice from George Osbourne, then it is ignored.
It is clear that she is talking complete nonsense, but team Keith fail to call her out.
Governments are elected to make a difference.
So it would be good to set out what the contours of that difference look like.
Here is a starter...tell us what the plan is for dealing with climate change in 2024, across the UK economy?
-
better ask pud that the tories are still in are they not Albie?
-
What an utterly weird response Albie.
BFYP was expressing incredulity that anyone who supported Corbyn's policies could support Starmer's.
You supported Corbyn's economics but you don't support Starmer's. Yet both were based on the principle of there being no borrowing to cover current spending.
I'd also point out that the link you posted about the economists' letter (more social activists, but we'll ignore that) commented favourably on the policies of the last Labour Govt. Are you saying you support those policies now? Only, you didn't support them at the time. And the likes of you on the Left refusing to support Labour when it really mattered in 2010 (cos they were Red Tories weren't they?) dumped us into this catastrophe of a decade and a half.
-
The only thing that is weird Billy, is your inability to recognise the flawed logic of your position.
In a nutshell, it is Tory austerity bad, Labour austerity good(ish).
More deceitful whataboutery then follows.
I was not speaking to Pud.
As a socialist, I support socialist policies, whoever is in temporary charge.
I backed the policies under Corbyn, but had some concerns over his management style.
The idea that both Corbyn and Starmer had similar positions is incorrect, "both were based on the principle of there being no borrowing to cover current spending".
In fact, Labour were committed to raise revenue for redistribution from a range of sources, including tax reforms.
This has now been rejected by Starmer/Reeves, without any replacement strategy.
The policies of the last Labour government were correct in some cases, but deeply flawed in others.
You only need to look at the back end loading of ruinous PFI deals to see that.
All of which is nothing to the point, as you well know.
Whatever happened back then is not a template for what happens going forward.
So, in the measure that climate breakdown disrupts the economic system, do you support Reeves belief that waiting until the later years of the next parliament to act at all is a reasonable response?
It seems the critical issue to me, rather than an artificial attempt to remove debt from the public accounts.
-
Albie.
I'm sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of that.
If you're saying that there's no need to balance the current account and there will be no price to pay for that, that's fine. Just don't talk about people who think that breaks the most fundamental rule of macroeconomics being "outside the mainstream."
And your criticism would be far more understandable if you'd regularly ranted about Corbyn's team also agreeing with that as a fiscal rule.
-
Isn't it very odd that Labour supporters tell us that Keith isn't a liar whilst hoping he is one .
The election manifesto will reveal all .
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
-
Labour under JC had no chance of winning an Election
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
There's never been a truer time to confirm that many Labour supporters would vote for any old witless, smarmy, pretentious ball-sack as long as they're sporting a Red rose.
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
There's never been a truer time to confirm that many Labour supporters would vote for any old witless, smarmy, pretentious ball-sack as long they were sporting a Red rose.
whereas the last 13/14 years show what happens when you allow the tories in aye bb?
-
And if you think replacing them with any old Red Rose-wearing, witless, smarmy, pretentious ball-sack is the answer then you are part of the problem.
-
For all his faults and there were quite a few, Corbyn would have more humanity in his little finger that all those the crawled to the top of the greasy pole on the tory side together, aye?
-
And if you think replacing them with any old Red Rose-wearing, witless, smarmy, pretentious ball-sack is the answer then you are part of the problem.
-
wrong side of the bed again bb?
-
wrong side of the bed again bb?
Would you have answered the question had I got out the other side?
-
my, we are grumpy today aren't we
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
And if you actually mean that, Hound then that only shows a staggering lack of political awareness or perhaps simply a total lack of moral values. But of course you're just having one of your usual snide digs at certain individuals aren't you... people who whilst supporting Corbin were at the same time principled enough to voice their concerns with some aspects of his leadership. They were willing to support a party led by him because it was the only remaining way of ridding the country of the catastrophe of Tory control, but they you know that don't you. Still never one to pass up the opportunity to get in one of your snide digs.
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
And if you actually mean that, Hound then that only shows a staggering lack of political awareness or perhaps simply a total lack of moral values. But of course you're just having one of your usual snide digs at certain individuals aren't you... people who whilst supporting Corbin were at the same time principled enough to voice their concerns with some aspects of his leadership. They were willing to support a party led by him because it was the only remaining way of ridding the country of the catastrophe of Tory control, but they you know that don't you. Still never one to pass up the opportunity to get in one of your snide digs.
It must have been very disconcerting then to find out whilst you were out there doing your bit for the Labour Party , Mandelson and his minnions of class traitors were fecking you over too as well as Corbyn .
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
And if you actually mean that, Hound then that only shows a staggering lack of political awareness or perhaps simply a total lack of moral values. But of course you're just having one of your usual snide digs at certain individuals aren't you... people who whilst supporting Corbin were at the same time principled enough to voice their concerns with some aspects of his leadership. They were willing to support a party led by him because it was the only remaining way of ridding the country of the catastrophe of Tory control, but they you know that don't you. Still never one to pass up the opportunity to get in one of your snide digs.
Hound is so obsessed in his need to show that the other side are hypocrites that he doesn't even bother processing what he reads.
Personally, I've said for years that Corbyn's team had broadly the correct economic policies, as did Milliband and Brown at the previous elections. There's no semblance of a contradiction in supporting all them.
I've also said for years that I strongly disliked Corbyn's foreign policy, but also that Johnson's was worse. In that sense, as I've said for years, it was the worst choice for PM at any election in my lifetime. But that was the choice we had. The world isn't perfect and you often have to choose the least bad option, rather than the ideal one.
Not that I expect any of that to change Hound's conviction that I'm a devious hypocrite.
-
And if you think replacing them with any old Red Rose-wearing, witless, smarmy, pretentious ball-sack is the answer then you are part of the problem.
Brilliant,such a way with words.
Talking of ball sacks,certain posters on here were like the Bullingdon Pig's head,gagging on and swallowing the swelling the muck from all those old Etonians.
-
You have a way with words yourself, especially when you seem to get carried away with graphic detail the more excited you get.
-
Not really Bents. You could probably benefit from counselling for your anger issues.
-
I think this vid says everything. Even if you just watch the first few mins you get the point.
Labour are not a choice any more. This is the worst point in British politics in over 100 years. In terms of things I've said in other threads concerning democracy, this illustrates that with brass knobs on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rTI8w-vI8
-
And if you think replacing them with any old Red Rose-wearing, witless, smarmy, pretentious ball-sack is the answer then you are part of the problem.
I have to agree with you in the current sitiation especially with a tory light Labour Party, but there are a great many Red Rose wearers who have a heart and a brain and don't subserviantly grease their anus for the power elite like almost all tory MPs, and tory supporters, do.
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
And if you actually mean that, Hound then that only shows a staggering lack of political awareness or perhaps simply a total lack of moral values. But of course you're just having one of your usual snide digs at certain individuals aren't you... people who whilst supporting Corbin were at the same time principled enough to voice their concerns with some aspects of his leadership. They were willing to support a party led by him because it was the only remaining way of ridding the country of the catastrophe of Tory control, but they you know that don't you. Still never one to pass up the opportunity to get in one of your snide digs.
Pies, it isn’t a sly dig all. It is a fact that had Labour won one the GEs that he was leader then he would have been PM wouldn’t he.
There was more than one poster who was singing JCs praises.
Were they going along with the train of thought that soon after winning they would have been campaigning for a new leader because if that hadn’t happened we would have been stuck with him.
Of course some have voiced concerns about him but in the main those concerns have been since his last defeat, probably with the good old benefit of hindsight.
Some of those same posters are having doubts about Starmer and some of his lack of policy decisions and many changes of mind.
If Labour don’t win again, and I very much think that they will, I suppose we will read about how he was the wrong man.
Raven, you say that Labour could never have won with JC in charge but they did come every close didn’t they.
-
Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from. If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.
Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.
There must be shed loads you don't see pud, the suffering and starvation of the poor under tory Austerity, yet you continued to vote for them, go lecture someone else.
It's much easier to see what's happening in this country and what people in this country think when you're actually here. We'd have much more positive politics if it wasn't as you are so focussed on what people call "the other side".
The snip on Rachel Reeves is the potential issue Labour could have in future. They now likely have to actually carry out all of the things they've criticised the government for and do things differently. We'll see what they're made of and I hope they achieve what they say they're going to because economic growth, wage rises above inflation, sensible housing market, low NHS waiting lists and lower/controlled immigration are all things we want aren't they? Sounds easy right?
-
Labour under JC had no chance of winning an Election
Because almost the whole media was against him, because the corporate elites felt threatened - less yachts for them, And because the ludicrous antisemitism slurs were wheeled out by the right wingers in the Labour Party, as well as the media etc. Despite this, he so very nearly won.
This is what most people here celebrate as "democracy".
-
I think this vid says everything. Even if you just watch the first few mins you get the point.
Labour are not a choice any more. This is the worst point in British politics in over 100 years. In terms of things I've said in other threads concerning democracy, this illustrates that with brass knobs on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rTI8w-vI8
That just about sums up the Labour Party BRR in that clip .
Anyone who promotes trickle down economics as a way to grow the economy is lying to us .
Anyone who promotes Austerity as a method of social cohesion is lying to us .
It's as ludicrous as Trussenomics for 95% of the population .
If the Labour Party suck on Thatcher's neoliberal nipple and expect a different outcome then what can anyone say about this collection of Clown Car occupants .
If anyone says well wait for them to be in government and it will be different then how does that configure with an Election Manifesto .
An Election Manifesto is your mandate to govern and carry out the policies you proposed in that Manifesto .
So if taxes aren't increased for the well off and extremely well off and Labour says it's to stimulate growth then that's trickle down economics and almost every economist worth his salt will tell you it just doesn't work .
I'm sure nobody needs reminding on the merits of Austerity , try getting a doctor's appointment for one .
Why Labour don't take the lower paid out of taxation altogether is beyond me .
The lower paid will spend their extra money and boost the economy and some of that money then returns to the government in the taxes they spend the money on .
How's about Labour give that one a go for at least the first five years IF they win the election that is .
-
Not really Bents. You could probably benefit from counselling for your anger issues.
Thats rich coming from you!
-
Not really Bents. You could probably benefit from counselling for your anger issues.
Thats rich coming from you!
Another one.
How many stalkers do I need?
Two pairs of undies when I go to bed tonight.
Just to be on the safe side.
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
And if you actually mean that, Hound then that only shows a staggering lack of political awareness or perhaps simply a total lack of moral values. But of course you're just having one of your usual snide digs at certain individuals aren't you... people who whilst supporting Corbin were at the same time principled enough to voice their concerns with some aspects of his leadership. They were willing to support a party led by him because it was the only remaining way of ridding the country of the catastrophe of Tory control, but they you know that don't you. Still never one to pass up the opportunity to get in one of your snide digs.
Pies, it isn’t a sly dig all. It is a fact that had Labour won one the GEs that he was leader then he would have been PM wouldn’t he.
There was more than one poster who was singing JCs praises.
Were they going along with the train of thought that soon after winning they would have been campaigning for a new leader because if that hadn’t happened we would have been stuck with him.
Of course some have voiced concerns about him but in the main those concerns have been since his last defeat, probably with the good old benefit of hindsight.
Some of those same posters are having doubts about Starmer and some of his lack of policy decisions and many changes of mind.
If Labour don’t win again, and I very much think that they will, I suppose we will read about how he was the wrong man.
Raven, you say that Labour could never have won with JC in charge but they did come every close didn’t they.
They didn't win though did they?
-
The background context for the latest Reeves car crash interview (linked above) is the Labour Party accepting embedded support from private sector interests in the internal operations of the party;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-grant-thornton-weber-shandwick-corporate-lobbying/
This takes political lobbying on to a new level, where the usual methods of influencing policy are locked in by dependency upon corporate logistical support.
So why would these companies be providing these services if not to have early sight of proposals, and the chance to amend them before they even reach a wider audience?
-
I find it more strange that people slam Corbyn a few short years after voting for a Labour Party that he was leader of and would have become PM had they won.
And if you actually mean that, Hound then that only shows a staggering lack of political awareness or perhaps simply a total lack of moral values. But of course you're just having one of your usual snide digs at certain individuals aren't you... people who whilst supporting Corbin were at the same time principled enough to voice their concerns with some aspects of his leadership. They were willing to support a party led by him because it was the only remaining way of ridding the country of the catastrophe of Tory control, but they you know that don't you. Still never one to pass up the opportunity to get in one of your snide digs.
Pies, it isn’t a sly dig all. It is a fact that had Labour won one the GEs that he was leader then he would have been PM wouldn’t he.
There was more than one poster who was singing JCs praises.
Were they going along with the train of thought that soon after winning they would have been campaigning for a new leader because if that hadn’t happened we would have been stuck with him.
Of course some have voiced concerns about him but in the main those concerns have been since his last defeat, probably with the good old benefit of hindsight.
Some of those same posters are having doubts about Starmer and some of his lack of policy decisions and many changes of mind.
If Labour don’t win again, and I very much think that they will, I suppose we will read about how he was the wrong man.
Raven, you say that Labour could never have won with JC in charge but they did come every close didn’t they.
They didn't win though did they?
Ha, well …. No. Fair enough.
Close call though.
-
Sorry Syd, you think it is irrelevant that Reeves is promising austerity from a Labour government?
Blimey, that takes the biscuit!
You'll do and say anything Albie except guarantee that labour will win, of course if they don't all your dreams of getting everything you want from labour with the right leader turn to shit, do they not? Some 4 years ago I went to a party that turned into a wake because labor here lost the unlosable election.
-
Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from. If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.
Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.
There must be shed loads you don't see pud, the suffering and starvation of the poor under tory Austerity, yet you continued to vote for them, go lecture someone else.
It's much easier to see what's happening in this country and what people in this country think when you're actually here. We'd have much more positive politics if it wasn't as you are so focussed on what people call "the other side".
The snip on Rachel Reeves is the potential issue Labour could have in future. They now likely have to actually carry out all of the things they've criticised the government for and do things differently. We'll see what they're made of and I hope they achieve what they say they're going to because economic growth, wage rises above inflation, sensible housing market, low NHS waiting lists and lower/controlled immigration are all things we want aren't they? Sounds easy right?
So I need to be in the country to see that the tories never ever keep their grand promises and screw over working people in favour of their own position. I need to be in the country to see them try to paint over Austerity that is now still brining councils to their knees, that would promote people such as the spivs, May, Johnson, Truss and now Risky giving up on all his promises? Give over pud, you have never wavered in your loyalty to them never for a second, and you try tell me whom I should back in!
Tell me again about brexit please.
-
Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from. If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.
Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.
There must be shed loads you don't see pud, the suffering and starvation of the poor under tory Austerity, yet you continued to vote for them, go lecture someone else.
It's much easier to see what's happening in this country and what people in this country think when you're actually here. We'd have much more positive politics if it wasn't as you are so focussed on what people call "the other side".
The snip on Rachel Reeves is the potential issue Labour could have in future. They now likely have to actually carry out all of the things they've criticised the government for and do things differently. We'll see what they're made of and I hope they achieve what they say they're going to because economic growth, wage rises above inflation, sensible housing market, low NHS waiting lists and lower/controlled immigration are all things we want aren't they? Sounds easy right?
So I need to be in the country to see that the tories never ever keep their grand promises and screw over working people in favour of their own position. I need to be in the country to see them try to paint over Austerity that is now still brining councils to their knees, that would promote people such as the spivs, May, Johnson, Truss and now Risky giving up on all his promises? Give over pud, you have never wavered in your loyalty to them never for a second, and you try tell me whom I should back in!
Tell me again about brexit please.
You on the ‘Tinnies’ again Sydders,
-
brexit you can see it from the moon
vote tory
-
They didn't win though did they?
See my reply above.
-
I think seeing the Tories, and the Tory lites, from outside Britain if you've ever lived here can be more stark than it is when living here. On the other hand, for people that have never lived here it's possibly seen as a bit quaint, quintessential British, missing the absolute perverse reality of it.
-
Lo, is that the faint hum of a russian drone I hear?
-
I think seeing the Tories, and the Tory lites, from outside Britain if you've ever lived here can be more stark than it is when living here. On the other hand, for people that have never lived here it's possibly seen as a bit quaint, quintessential British, missing the absolute perverse reality of it.
Go on then I'll ask
Where is HERE?
-
Absolutely you can't change your thoughts just because of the party they're coming from. If you're a fan of Jeremy Corbyns labour and policies I don't see how you can be a fan of Starmers labour, they're very very different.
Labour will attract millions who voted Tory with these policies and get power but they'll have to hold steady, if they then move from those policies they'll get slaughtered the next time round and this is a real chance for them to get power for 15 years +.
There must be shed loads you don't see pud, the suffering and starvation of the poor under tory Austerity, yet you continued to vote for them, go lecture someone else.
It's much easier to see what's happening in this country and what people in this country think when you're actually here. We'd have much more positive politics if it wasn't as you are so focussed on what people call "the other side".
The snip on Rachel Reeves is the potential issue Labour could have in future. They now likely have to actually carry out all of the things they've criticised the government for and do things differently. We'll see what they're made of and I hope they achieve what they say they're going to because economic growth, wage rises above inflation, sensible housing market, low NHS waiting lists and lower/controlled immigration are all things we want aren't they? Sounds easy right?
BFYP
Do you ever reflect on how badly misled you were nearly a decade and a half ago when you swallowed the line that Austerity was necessary?
Have you ever reflected on the almost unimaginable damage that did to the country.
You're here. You've seen it.
-
I think seeing the Tories, and the Tory lites, from outside Britain if you've ever lived here can be more stark than it is when living here. On the other hand, for people that have never lived here it's possibly seen as a bit quaint, quintessential British, missing the absolute perverse reality of it.
Go on then I'll ask
Where is HERE?
Britain. Was in the context of someone slagging Sydney for having an opinion in the comments immediately before.
-
Lo, is that the faint hum of a russian drone I hear?
Probs tinnitus, or a Queensland
whinging pom orchid wasp in your ear - go for a swim.
-
Oh dear , Labour facing legal action , mistreatment of Jews .
https://youtu.be/az1n0h1A5mA?si=41_X_t2WFUAgI-3G
-
Oh dear , Labour facing legal action , mistreatment of Jews .
https://youtu.be/az1n0h1A5mA?si=41_X_t2WFUAgI-3G
Surely not.
-
It can't be true, otherwise, Billy would have started a thread about it.
-
There are broader concerns about the actions of Labour in relation to racism, set out by Martyn Forde in his report;
https://youtu.be/tiODoWurA64
The hierarchy of racism might lead to other claims, where ethnic minority groups have suffered disadvantage or exclusion.
-
There are broader concerns about the actions of Labour in relation to racism, set out by Martyn Forde in his report;
https://youtu.be/tiODoWurA64
The hierarchy of racism might lead to other claims, where ethnic minority groups have suffered disadvantage or exclusion.
In Copley rd Albie?
-
Cognitive dissonance
-
There are broader concerns about the actions of Labour in relation to racism, set out by Martyn Forde in his report;
https://youtu.be/tiODoWurA64
The hierarchy of racism might lead to other claims, where ethnic minority groups have suffered disadvantage or exclusion.
In Copley rd Albie?
Can you show how albies point might refer to Copley Road Syd.
-
There are broader concerns about the actions of Labour in relation to racism, set out by Martyn Forde in his report;
https://youtu.be/tiODoWurA64
The hierarchy of racism might lead to other claims, where ethnic minority groups have suffered disadvantage or exclusion.
In Copley rd Albie?
Can you show how albies point might refer to Copley Road Syd.
As local expert on Copley rd I was expecting you to do that, hound. (not an expert on grammer but I think you missed out a comma)
-
There are broader concerns about the actions of Labour in relation to racism, set out by Martyn Forde in his report;
https://youtu.be/tiODoWurA64
The hierarchy of racism might lead to other claims, where ethnic minority groups have suffered disadvantage or exclusion.
In Copley rd Albie?
Can you show how albies point might refer to Copley Road Syd.
As local expert on Copley rd I was expecting you to do that, hound. (not an expert on grammer but I think you missed out a comma)
I knew why you posted what you did syd and seeing as you have no idea what Copley Road is like now, I thought you ought to know.
Oh, and I didn’t miss out a comma.
So, the question (still) is, how can albies point refer to Copley Road?
-
not an expert hound, can't possibly know living over here
-
Not really sure what is floating Syd's boat, but here is an explainer from George Monbiot on the quality of our political leaders:
https://youtu.be/Zcn-LYa4fLE
The Red/Blue Tory consensus is owned by the pollution industries, and Keith is a lackey to those interests.
Hope that helps, Syd!
-
Albie, Albie, this was a question that was asked yesterday (not me)
''who put Corbyn in charge of the LP and he brought about the biggest defeat in decades for them.''
It is something you could comment on?
-
Private Eye article on the legal costs Starmer has run up pursuing actions without merit;
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/hp-sauce