I owe you nothing. Not another second of my time.
I can’t be arsed.
I’m not going near that nonsense
*reaches for the chinnyreckon meme*
Look, it's fine. If you don't want to explain the thinking behind your statement, you are free to do so. Just as I am free to infer that there's nothing more to it than shallow tribalism.
I'm not diverting this thread to go into the hundreds of reasons I want the Tories out of government. Or why our voting system limits our choices when that is you aim when your vote in Westminster elections. It's been done to death in many threads.
With 280 Tory seats and no UKIP seats I would take the gamble and vote UKIP
So you would be voting for a party which is more rightwing than the tories in order to deprive them of a seat? Which would then generally go their way anyway.
Odd.
I’m not diverting this thread to go into the hundreds of reasons I want the Tories out of government.
This is your fourth post telling us that you don't want to tell us. You could've explained it by now.
I said this some time ago, but if this country really is 'small c' conservative - which I dispute very strongly - then it makes sense to have people who believe in conservative policies in government. Conversely, if the country is broadly left of centre as I have always beliieved and pretty much all the evidence supports, then it makes sense to have a party which beliieves in those policies in government.
What we have right now is a tory party very much behind a very rightwing agenda, and a parliamentary labour party behind what looks like a traditiional tory 'wet' slightly rightwing agenda. Everyone else - the majority - is disenfranchised at the altar of what the political class decides is good for their careers.
So my advice to kelvin et al who will gladly sell every last principle and moral stance down the river to 'win' (in quotes because whilst you might be in power you haven't really won if you do nothing different) is to stop worryiing about it. Politics is a game played by people who want power. If you're not one of them it makes little sense to play to their rules or invest much energy in it.
Yep, and I can't imagine the muslamic vote would be very impressed with some of Starmer's machinations.
I’m aware that some people are entirely comfortable with us having a Tory government, because for them politics is just a game played down the pub, or on Internet forums, but lives are blighted daily but having this lot in power. So you can ‘not worry about it’ if you want, that’s fine… not everyone has that luxury.
but lives are blighted daily but having this lot in power.
As they will be blighted by having Labour in power with conservative policies. A labour government doesn't automatically benefit people at the bottom, they have to actually do something different to the tories. I know you all subscribe to the 'get in power then do all the stuff we're too scared to mention now' theory but all the evidence of the past suggests that simply doesn't happen. It's a red herring in any case, because labour tried that in 2015 and failed miserably. Voters are not going to put a party in power who don't have the courage of their convictions, and given labour can't do the very easy basic things like propose a pay rise for nurses higher than 2.1%, there is little evidence to suggest they have any interest in changing anything.
So, we're all in agreement:
It is far, far better, for the sake of our beloved idealogical purity, to support a political party that doesn't actually exist, and who nowhere near enough people would vote for even if it did, than to compromise our lofty moral values that we must loudly proclaim at every turn to show the world how virtuous we are?
And if that means permanent Tory government, then so be it?
Glad we're finally cleared that up...
than to compromise our lofty moral values that we must loudly proclaim at every turn to show the world how virtuous we are?
The recycling rate must be excellent in Ramsbottom, given how often you trot out the same bullcrap on here.
For the hard of listening and thinking: plenty of us here have compromised our values to achieve what we thought was a practical objective, which is why Tony Blair was elected on a landslide and is why Keith Starmer is the current leader. So it's reasonable to ask, having lent Starmer our votes, what we might see in return. At the moment, all I'm observing is an unelectable party that doesn't seem to stand for anything at all (except the flags, obvs).
I've asked before and had no response,
One year in, leader of the opposition.
Losing voters.
...
Successful first year?
Leaving aside the talk of policies and direction, bottom line is voter numbers.
He's losing voters.
So give me something to take heart from?
where are the successes to give me hope he can turn this around?
Convince me he can lead labour and win more votes.
(My vote doesn't count, I'm already voting Labour next election whatever happens. I'm stubborn like that.)
So give me something to take heart from?
where are the successes to give me hope he can turn this around?
There is nothing, because as I've also said previously, they've already achieved their objective of winning back control of the party. Plummeting polls and ever increasing disillusion and apathy mean nothing to these a***holes because in their pathetic self-interested minds they've already won.
What we'll see for the next couple of years is more of the same empty rhetoric on policy and a ramping up of the war on the membership on the premise that they cause disunity, resulting in more expulsions and less voting rights. Then Starmer will be beaten with a bigger majority for Boris and they'll trot out the same 'it was the fault of the left' nonsensee and annoint the next careerist in line (Rayner or Nandy probably) and it will all start again.
Don't take this the wrong way dazh, but kind of hoping for a positive response from one of his supporters.
Anything. Anyone. Please.
Look at what's happening with the defence review, Labour criticise it but fundamentally it's in line with what Labour have promised to do anyway.
It's obvious to anyone that they just criticise by default even when they don't really have anything to say, what's the point? 'Well we would do basically the same thing but the emphasis would be slightly different and we'd use slightly different language'.
Dunno about you but when I want a Coke I want a proper one not the pretend-healthy versions that don't taste right.
Keir needs to be more ambitious. Massively more ambitious, its no good trying to be a bit different from the Tories or from Corbyn/ Blair/ Cameron or any previous leader. The Labour Party needs to redraw the lines of battle. Who should the Labour Party be appealing to now? What are its ultimate aims?
New Labour was a successful transformation but only surface level and worked only because Blair was willing to court Murdoch et al.
The Tories are the party of the establishment and do not need to change. Labour needs to change and trying to be another party of the establishment is not going to work.
So you would be voting for a party which is more rightwing than the tories in order to deprive them of a seat? Which would then generally go their way anyway.
Odd.
Only odd because you seem to have missed "where UKIP were the only party that could realistically have a chance of beating the tory to try and reduce that 280". So it would not be likely to generally go their way as if it was I wouldn't gamble on it. It is also based on UKIP having zero seats and no chance of getting enough to do anything with.
It is also completely theoretical and I am never going to see a situation like it so all a bit of a pointless discussion really.
The Labour Party needs to redraw the lines of battle.
Have you been living in a cave for the last 6 years? They tried that. Twice. It didn't work, either time.
The last time was utterly catastrophic and the reason we are where we are, with a right wing buffoon sat on a huge majority
Only odd because you seem to have missed
No I didnt it is just that it doesnt make sense.
It wouldnt be reducing their majority in any real sense of the word since the loons would simply vote with the tories in most cases and on those cases where they disagreed probably want to go futher right and hence still vote along.
On the plus side Starmer is still doing better than Labour did at the last GE
realistically the vaccine bounce sand opening up means that there is little ground to be gained for any opposition right now, but the Tories are still down on their GE performance.
And very similar trends in scotlands polling regards SNP vs Tories
Opposing Patels latest bill & expansion of nukes is absolutely right as well as politically astute- Starmer not vulnerable on these the way Corbyn was helps
Hes still lacking charisma & traction with voters & being outplayed at the media game by the Tories, though
As we open up more the Tories will see a bigger bounce, but economic fallout of covid means that winter is coming & by next winter, we will really know whether Starmer is good enough.
(& thatd still leave enough time to replace him with yvette cooper- which would probably upset the corbynites even more!)
ransos
Free Member
I was wondering if there was any more depth to your thinking than tribalism
I've read some really funny stuff on t'interwebz lately but nothing made me laugh out loud quite like that...
Priceless!
P.S. I now need a new irony-o-meter as my previous one red-lined and the glass shattered.
🤣🤣🤣
Hes still lacking charisma & traction with voters & being outplayed at the media game by the Tories, though
If Labour were prepared to replace him about 12 months out from an election, with someone not lacking in these areas, there might be chance of a bounce over the line when it comes to the vote. But, even if Labour were flexible/nimble enough to do that, who (the hell) would that be?!? That’s the big question.
Labours problem there is that they have 2 tainted legacies; those of corbyn & blair, association with either of those 2 makes it an uphill battle
regardless tho Starmer is leader now & the next big challenge faced by the country is what happens after the Holyrood elections, a pro-indy majority sees the break up of the UK coming to a Supreme Court near you
Labour & Starmer need a position on keeping the UK together (or not) , imho Starmer needs to go balls deep on a federal settlement (including English regions)
I’ve read some really funny stuff on t’interwebz lately but nothing made me laugh out loud quite like that…
Priceless!
P.S. I now need a new irony-o-meter as my previous one red-lined and the glass shattered.
I think your problem there is the very large gap between what I've written, and what you imagine I've written.
The Tories are the party of the establishment and do not need to change.
So are labour. Even under Corbyn they were a party of the establishment. Corbyn was on the privy council FFS, how much more establishment can you get? Under Starmer they're not just of the establishment, but fully supportive of it, and that's what needs to change.
I think your problem there is the very large gap between what I’ve written, and what you imagine I’ve written.
No problem here, I've got you pretty well figured.
Hang on a minute?
Comrade Jezza is now a lackey and tool of the establishment? A mere mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex?
Who would you have as the next Labour leader Daz? The reactivated cadaver of Che Guervara? 😂
Of course: criticise the flag waving nonentity and you’re a cultist. Do you not realise how pathetic that makes you sound?
So, you have nothing else then? Thought not.
No problem here, I’ve got you pretty well figured.
I think we all have. I reckon it’s Len McClusky and I claim my manufactured backstory of having once worked on the docks
Who do you think?
Politics is a game played by people who want power. If you’re not one of them it makes little sense to play to their rules or invest much energy in it.
I agree with this. And I think it might be why I find this thread so addictively depressing.
It's the utter lack of hope or belief in anything. That ordinary people can achieve nothing.
That anyone who believes or hopes in any kind of significant change is a naive idiot.
That we should accept all this and treat politics like football - support the red one or the blue one.
No problem here, I’ve got you pretty well figured.
If it helps you to believe that, crack on.
So, you have nothing else then? Thought not.
The only surprise there is that you had a thought.
No denial that you are Len McClusky though?
Makes you think...
I find this thread so addictively depressing
This sums up my feelings so precisely...
Politics is a game played by people who want power. If you’re not one of them it makes little sense to play to their rules or invest much energy in it.
At last somebody on this thread that gets it.
Power swopping every decade or so between the nasty Tories and Spendy Labour. Nothing really changes does it. We are ran by a privately educated political elite. The system is devised and ruled over by Westminster to provide one of two possible outcomes, non of which will give us what we really need to move forward.
No binbins,Corbz clearly played on the same battle lines. Same since the 70s as you would say.
A new set is needed. eg Federal UK, ambitious energy/transport infrastructure ideas, tax reforms.
Inbred456
Free MemberPower swopping every decade or so between the nasty Tories and Spendy Labour. Nothing really changes does it.
Except for the bit about "spendy Labour"- it's bollocks. Since the war, and pre-Covid, Tory governments have borrowed an average of £33.6bn per year and Labour has borrowed an average of £28bn per year. Just one metric of course but they mostly work out about the same.
I was being a bit pedantic.
I know it’s a perception that is really meaningless, nevertheless it’s one that the electorate buys into. Meanwhile nothing really changes.
Dodds doing her best to move the debate away from labours pathetic opposition of the police bill to their pathetic support of the nurses. I have to admit I find it all quite funny. F****** clueless the lot of them!
https://twitter.com/anneliesedodds/status/1371914832618917888?s=12
A spendy government is a good thing. This is where the narrative needs to be rewritten. Government spending is a private sector surplus.
As long as the spendy bit benefits the population in a progressive way it's good loosely speaking.
The Tories are very spendy but actually terrible with the cash (as has been evidenced). Their relationship with the BoE is laughable too - denying they don't have a direct connection to it. Interest rates have nowhere to really go - the whole BoE way of doing this is a bouncy castle industry overseen by a Governor clown out of touch with the business he is in. The Establishment is hard to crack despite massive levels of incompetence.
US of A have gone full in with their stimulus of direct cash. We need something like this. And is pure MMT - almost accepted there. Although I don't doubt the Republicans will move back to a position of balancing the budget and irresponsible spending rhetoric even though Trump wasn't shy with the purse at all.
As an aside I've noticed more and more folks like Ian Dunt and James O'Brien seemed to be shocked recently how the Tories have ended up like Tories. Ian Dunt in particular getting annoyed at the bill 'now' that was in the Tories 2019 cheat sheet.
Both of them still love to give Corbyn a good kicking. One day some Centrists will accept their part in the process of what could've have been instead of what we got.
They also might understand that Centrism already has plenty of failed parties they could look to instead of this downward trajectory of Labour they're so keen on. Although to be fair most of Centrism's failed babies have gone on to do nicely out of the corporate sector. Chris Leslie I'm looking at you.
Power swopping every decade or so between the nasty Tories and Spendy Labour. Nothing really changes does it.
Nope. And the majority of voters don't care enough to even want that to change. The Green party is the most radical out of any parties that could realistically be voted for (have enough candidates) and they are not exactly radical.
They are however sat at 5% and don't seem to be increasing even though we are all supposed to be more and more interested in the sort of intentions they have.
Isn't self-employment a wonderful thing. Uber understood that. They might be objectively working class but can be easily misguided into a lumpen proletarian hatred of socialists, trades unions and demonstrations. Even when they're on their arse. Triples all round!
Isn’t self-employment a wonderful thing. Uber understood that. They might be objectively working class but can be easily misguided into a lumpen proletarian hatred of socialists, trades unions and demonstrations. Even when they’re on their arse. Triples all round!
Medieval lords and landowners understood it too. Keep the serfs in perpetual poverty and insecurity and they'll beat their contemporaries to death to go up in your estimation and earn a few beans.
Do we have another imaginary dividing line to try and wedge open? The self-employed against employees? Tedious.
It might be tedious but it is important. The self employed are much more open to exploitation but also less likely to develop a 'collective conscience' and therefore engage in collective action. A fragmented workforce is much more profitable and it increases poverty and fs their future, but who cares? Political leadership should embrace people in all sorts of working arrangements with collective goals that will benefit the majority. ' The self-employed against the..... employees?' is exactly what they want and what we see.
