Forum menu
develop a keen sense of righteous self-importance
Yeah maybe don't need to concentrate too much on developing this part.
Your belligerent, fact-light style would be perfect for Twitter actually.
Oh great! Another opinion piece of idle speculation from another bunch of sub-Canary level lefties on their Twitter echo chamber, except this time they’re Jewish?
Wow. Reported.
Looks like I’ve got myself a new job then comrade.
I’ll be sure to name-check you upon my first broadcast and again when I pick up my first broadcasting award
Doesn’t really answer the question, does it?
So which policy commitments has he abandoned then?
We've been here before. You called me a liar, I posted the evidence, and you refused to apologise. Confirming your lack of class.
It's all in this thread for those who can be bothered. Not binners, obviously.
What you’ve posted is nothing but the idle, Twitter level musings of some sixth former sat in their bedroom
You’re seriously posting that bobbins up as a source of ‘news’ to be quoted?
This thread is as much fun as ever
In terms of policy:
(a) 2019 manifesto is still policy until replaced
(b) clearly the manifesto going into the next election will be different - but this is why there is a perceived policy vacuum
But...
(c) Senior labour politicians are beginning to reaffirm 2019 labour policy. Like Miliband restating that nationalisation of energy, transport and water is policy. Lammy on abolition of zero hours, £10 minimum wage etc. Burnham pushing wealth tax. Rayner not pulling her punches on Tory sleaze and lies. Hardly the hard left of the party. I think the centerists may need to get used to there being more socialiism in Labour policy than they are comfortable with
Clearly this is partly positioning before conference, but I'm also getting a vibe that the senior labour team are fed up with Starmer's approach and think we should be steaming into the Tories whilst they are staggered in the polls.
I'm totally sure Labour can win back the Red Wall Racists with 'socialism'.
🤭
Binners' surely you want Keir to denounce Corbyn's policies? Or are you turning into a lefty after all?
Labour will not win an election unless we change the national political narrative away from the selfish, small minded, little Britain, anti-society, mindless nationalism the Tories have been pushing.
Pandering through messaging or policies to these views will never work because it's playing the game by the tory's rules and it's inconsistent with Labour's values (including those under new labour) - so it comes across as insincere and voters know it
We need to be hammering home the point that Tories are screwing over the poor for the benefit of the rich. And simultaneously socialising the ideas that fairer, flatter society benefits everyone.
No easy answers, but if we can't shift the argument we are screwed.
The constant factional circle jerk, as ably demonstrated on this thread is a real impediment to doing this
Binners’ surely you want Keir to denounce Corbyn’s policies? Or are you turning into a lefty after all?
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to say that I’ve never had a problem with most of Grandad’s policies, apart from the really daft ones
My problem with him was that he was absolutely clueless, without an ounce of political nous, who had spent 3 decades as a completely anonymous backbencher for very good reason. He was punching above his weight even then. And on becoming leader he surrounded himself with muppets on a similar level like Richard Burgon
He had a unique ability to repel voters and was just all the Tory’s birthdays and Christmases come at once
And on a personal level: pious, sanctimonious, po-faced, utterly joyless and self-righteous, qualities he shared with a lot of those who weirdly worship him like some Waco style cult leader. I’ve not much time for virtue-signallers
... and yes we can win back the redwall with left wing policy - the cuts to UC and increases to NI will have an impact and we need to be pushing our alternative - jobs, fair pay good services etc
I grew up in the redwall mining communities of North Derbyshire, and my family still lives there- the nationalist populism is pretty shallow really. It was just a way of expressing discontent thats more to do with the communities being ignored as the investment went into big cities. This should be ready territory for Labour to make some big promises that will benefit peoples lives
those who weirdly worship him like some Waco style cult leader
It's easier to lose and keep your ideological purity than win and have to compromise.
Yep. Never happier than when booing and hissing powerlessly from the sidelines, while wallowing in your own righteousness
No interest in the messy business of power and the inevitable compromises that entails
Bloody hell! Is this reality making a welcome appearance in the Labour Party? That’s progress.
Depressing that less than half the CLP’s see the obvious advantage to Labour of PR. Especially with the upcoming boundary changes
PR yes please.
As for the utter utter bollocks that preceded kimbers post- I am absolutely sure Corbyn tried to win both the 2017 and 2019 elections.
And as for booing and hissing form the sidelines- **** me! When Corbyn got in the centrists threw a hissy fit x1000 bigger than anything from the left of the party since Keir has been in. Yvette Cooper willing to compromise? Chuka? NO CHANCE!
What you’ve posted is nothing but the idle, Twitter level musings of some sixth former sat in their bedroom
Interesting description of an interview Starmer gave to the Guardian. But you knew that.
It’s easier to lose and keep your ideological purity than win and have to compromise.
Quite so. Those Labour members who worked so hard to undermine Corbyn have much to answer for.
Oh great! Another opinion piece of idle speculation from another bunch of sub-Canary level lefties on their Twitter echo chamber, except this time they’re Jewish?
More tinfoil-helmet nonsense
So; I reported this post last night, then decided to sleep on it. Because I found it extremely offensive. Because I felt that Binners was dismissing the opinions of Jewish people, who have as much right to have their voices heard as anyone, and hurling abuse at those whom he sees as having different opinions to his own. But why it's particularly offensive, is that many of the members of Jewish Voice for Labour are in fact very intelligent, well educated and knowledgable people, not the 'tinfoil helmet' brigade Binners likes to portray them as. Such people have been long term, even lifelong members of the Labour Party, and have fought and campaigned tirelessly against racism and injustice in our society, and for greater equality, improved Human rights, etc etc. They, as much as anyone, want to see the end to tory rule.
I find the level of abuse directed towards such groups, and 'lefties' in general, by Binners, to be utterly abhorrent; such people have done more to further the cause against division and inequality in our society, than pretty much anyone in the current PLP. The kind of grassroots campaigners and activists we need in order to create any semblance of opposition to tory rule. People who have as much right to be in the Labour Party as anyone else. The current drive by Starmer to eject such people, simply for not accepting his right-wing neoliberal view, is very worrying, and in the case of JVL members, moves towards actual, real anti-Semitism. The 'wrong type' of Jews. By insulting and abusing such people, Binners is aiding and abetting such dictatorial moves, which should be of concern to anyone who is truly committed to democracy and equality.
So Binners; I will politely, and as respectfully as I can, ask you to stop with all the slurs and abuse of 'lefties'. There's no need for it. Nobody else on here has been as vitriolic and hateful as you, towards people who you should be seeing as your allies, even though you might not agree with them. Or just leave the thread altogether.
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to say that I’ve never had a problem with most of Grandad’s policies, apart from the really daft ones
My problem with him was that he was absolutely clueless, without an ounce of political nous, who had spent 3 decades as a completely anonymous backbencher for very good reason. He was punching above his weight even then. And on becoming leader he surrounded himself with muppets on a similar level like Richard Burgon
He had a unique ability to repel voters and was just all the Tory’s birthdays and Christmases come at once
And on a personal level: pious, sanctimonious, po-faced, utterly joyless and self-righteous, qualities he shared with a lot of those who weirdly worship him like some Waco style cult leader. I’ve not much time for virtue-signallers
So; if you don't have a problem with Corbyn's actual policies, then just drop the abuse. All it does is detract form what should be the real goal; to bring the party back together again under a common purpose. All that is achieved with such partisan behaviour, is further division, which really does make things much easier for the tories. As has been explained time and again; it's really not the 'lefties' that have created the toxic divisions we're now seeing in the party.
This thread is about Kier Starmer, and how he is failing to unite the party and be able to form any sort of viable opposition tot he tories. Let's try to stay on topic.
Lets see how the conference goes. I'm more optimistic than I was last week & I think I'm more optimistic than most. I still think Keir could win.
Nobody else on here has been as vitriolic and hateful as you
Apart from your good self...Your tactic appears to be 1. Use an Ad-hom attack, than when you get a reply in a similar way, complain about Ad-hom attacks, or 2, use subtle anti Semitic remarks and then protest loudly and vociferously when many folks call you out for doing so, using it to repeatedly exclaim your innocence and accusing others of Ad-hom attacks and being anti-Semitic (again) It's tedious and derails the thread.
If you're asking Binners to calm down, then apply the same critique to yourself.
Apart from your good self…Your tactic appears to be 1. Use an Ad-hom attack, than when you get a reply in a similar way, complain about Ad-hom attacks, or 2, use subtle anti Semitic remarks and then protest loudly and vociferously when many folks call you out for doing so, using it to repeatedly exclaim your innocence and accusing others of Ad-hom attacks and being anti-Semitic (again) It’s tedious and derails the thread.
Please do point out where I've actually been 'anti-Semitic'. Oh now wait; you can't, because that's never happened, and you don't actually know what Anti-Semitism really is, besides knowing nothing about me, or my cultural background, life, experiences etc. Look; I know you want to have something to attack me for, but making shit up only makes you look like a ****. and I'm sure you don't want to look like a ****. And anyway; this was directed towards Binners, I'm sure he's more than capable of looking after himself, and doesn't need anyone speaking for him. Thanks.
This thread is about Kier Starmer, and how he is failing to unite the party and be able to form any sort of viable opposition to the tories. Let’s try to stay on topic.
That went as well as I expected
That went as well as I expected
So; you expected me to ask you to prove your offensive and completely false claims? That you're totally unable to substantiate? Blimey. Kind of strange that you'd post something knowing you'd end up looking a bit stupid. But hey.
This thread is about Kier Starmer, and how he is failing to unite the party and be able to form any sort of viable opposition to the tories. Let’s try to stay on topic.
That went as well as I expected
Your post was basically whataboutery though. There was a specific complaint about the abusive dismissal of JVL, who are themselves the target of masses of anti Semitic abuse (they are the wrong type of Jews, self-hating Jews etc) and have found their (Jewish) members being ejected on mass for anti-semitism, merely for supporting Corbyn's contention that AS was weaponised against the left.
It's a crazy situation and anyone who claims to care about the Labour party should be up in arms about it, rather than abusing them further.
The daughter of a Holocaust survivor who is a lifelong labour and anti-racist activist has been called a nazi concentration camp collaborator and kicked out of the Labour party for anti-semitism. Along with dozens of other Jewish labour members. Let that sink in for a moment.
Bridges, you are one of the people on this thread who come across very badly, over reacting, jumping on things that were not intended, insulting etc,. And that is on what is probably the worst thread on this forum for nasty bickering so quite an an achievement. I think many people should take a look at how they are coming across on this thread as it certainly isn't nice.
By the way I didn't read Binners comment as dismissing the opinions of Jewish people he was just pointing out that it is just more opinions (rather than facts) but this time from a Jewish angle, i.e. more of the same.
Well, there's at least one example of Starmer rowing back on a promise; in this instance to 'tackle anti-Semitism'. He's gone and done the opposite; expelled Jewish people from the party instead. Way to go, Keir.
By the way I didn’t read Binners comment as dismissing the opinions of Jewish people
I did. And I reported it as such. Look how we can have very different opinions about something? Isn't that wonderful? Sir Keir doesn't agree with me though, sadly. 🙁
Bridges, you are one of the people on this thread who come across very badly, over reacting, jumping on things that were not intended, insulting etc
Wow. Lack of self-awareness, much?
Kerley; you've already apologised to me for your mistakes, so, perhaps maybe go and think about that a bit? Thanks.
By the way I didn’t read Binners comment as dismissing the opinions of Jewish people
He wasn't dismissing them because they are Jewish but he absolutely was dismissing the opinions of Jewish people. Lifelong Jewish labour members/activists no longer welcome in the party, being heaped with further abuse, supposedly because of their anti-Semitism. It's really not a good look.
Of course they are opinions re the pledges, but they are a informed opinions with specific references to the pledges, and statements by shadow ministers and SKS. What else could there be?
Starmer pledge 10: An effective opposition to the Tories.
LMFAO.
Honestly a child could do this
Manifesto:
Starmer 2.1% wage rise Nurses. Labour manifesto 5%.
So which policy commitments has he abandoned then?
Lmfao. Off the top of my head.
2019 Manifesto NHS+public sector 5%. Starmer 2.1% Nurses.
Also of his 10 pledges my favourite:
10) An effective opposition to the Tories. Forensic.
(Double caffeine fuelled post)
Hey don't go quoting facts, that's tinfoil-hat wearing old trot/sixth former stuff. Ideological purity, don't want power, grandad, something something...
*Insert Monty Python picture.
Starmer 2.1% wage rise Nurses. Labour manifesto 5%.
Starmer and the rest of the front bench pointed out the Government's own plans were for a 2.1% rise, and that the Government should AT LEAST give them that, rather than reduce it. Nothing has been said that prevents a 5% rise being in the next Labour manifesto as well. They did however refuse to back the 12%+ rise that some unions were calling for.
Starmer and the rest of the front bench pointed out the Government’s own plans were for a 2.1% rise, and that the Government should AT LEAST give them that, rather than reduce it.
Why didn't they say we back 5% then? Why be ambiguous?
It's in the manifesto.
You're making excuses for them.
'we didn't row back on the manifesto we just will no longer say whether or not we support what we said in the manifesto' - some spectacularly weasely words there.
There was a clear option for Starmer to say it is our policy that the public sector should get 5%. It's our policy.
'At least 2.1%' is unequivocally an avoidance of that commitment.
I wasn't making excuses for them. You were interested in facts.
If I were to defend then, I'd say that their approach is to place the emphasis on the Tories not delivering on their own commitments first, and leave the voters with a "you can't trust this government" feeling rather than banging home a "look what you could have won if you'd voted for us" message. I don't think it's the right approach myself, it's too apologetic and doesn't help build enthusiasm for a Labour government. Opposition needs to be about offering a strong alternative, not just exposing the government as liars who only look after their own, and I don't think Starmer and his shadow team have been doing the former nearly enough.
Then it's a fact they didn't cite their manifesto commitment of 5%?
If I were to defend then, I’d say that their approach is to place the emphasis on the Tories not delivering on their own commitments first, and leave the voters with a “you can’t trust this government” feeling rather than banging home a “look what you could have won if you’d voted for us” message. I don’t think it’s the right approach myself, it’s too apologetic and doesn’t help build enthusiasm for a Labour government. Opposition needs to be about offering a strong alternative
Agreed.
,
Manifesto 2019 - to raise corporation tax to 26% eventually.
Remember Starmer's messy entry on that one?
"We"... as in people who supported them at the last election, need to stop expecting them to keep fighting the 2019 election though. They need to set out what they'd do in if they ever get into power in the future, and we have't heard enough about that yet. But measuring every policy message against the 2019 manifesto is the wrong approach. That manifesto is now closed. Lots* to salvage from it, but it can't be a straight jacket to wrap the party in. The voters need a new offering to get behind.... we haven't seen enough of one yet... but it won't be, and can't be, 2019 all over again.
[ EDIT: personally, I don't think there's much to keep that wasn't also in the 2017 manifesto, but that's still a very large proportion of it... but importantly, far from all of it ]
Of course things change, now more than ever but the deal here is the likes of Binners asking what has Starmer rowed back on.
That's all.
For sure it won't be 2019 or 2017. It will be far far less progressive.
“We”… as in people who supported them at the last election, need to stop expecting them to keep fighting the 2019 election though
Funny cos most of his supporters want Labour to fight the 1997 election.
What has he rowed back on? The next manifesto is still likely to include a pay rise for nurses. It could still be 5%, or more. The next manifesto could be more progressive... I'm hoping that on climate change, jobs and income for the lower paid it will be. But it won't we written in TV interviews this year. We need to hear more. Much more. But don't expect X% on CGT, or X% for nurses, or X% new higher rate inheritance tax, or X% for training care staff or whatever. The exact numbers will not be committed to in the media at this point of the election cycle.
Funny cos most of his supporters want Labour to fight the 1997 election.
I don't know any one who does. Mind you, I don't know anyone who would call themselves a "supporter" of Starmer, even those who think he's the best option. I do want him to be PM, absolutely, but I don't think he will be. I definitely don't think that polices that ape the 1997 manifesto would get him into no10, and see no signs that anyone on the front bench is proposing that at all.
What has he rowed back on? The next manifesto is still likely to include a pay rise for nurses. It could still be 5%, or more.
He cited 2.1%. we've just discussed this.
He could've have cited 5%.
You can't have it both ways.
What has he rowed back on?
He made it pretty clear that he didn't feel the need to stick to his ten pledges made for his leadership campaign. You may well argue that he is right to do so, but that wasn't the question.
The other way of looking at it is that he decided to say whatever he thought necessary to buy votes from the left.
Funny cos most of his supporters want Labour to fight the 1997 election.
If only it were that simple.
- Long reign of Tory rule that was about as low as it could get
- Still had the Scottish Labour MPs
- Still had the traditionally Labour voters who voted Labour because that was what was expected
It is much harder to win now than in 1997 even if a Blair type character was the leader who managed to get Labour to almost be seen as fashionable and progressive. Starmer is doing the opposite of that as that is all he knows.
He cited 2.1%.
He said the government should at least stick to their own 2.1%, rather than dump it.
He could’ve have cited 5%.
He could have, but it's easy to guess why he didn't. The laziest attack line for any Tory MP is "Labour's profligate and unrealistic spending pledges" they say it each and every time. Given that we've just spent huge amounts of money propping up the economy, and people (however wrongly) understand the message of "we've got to tighten our belts a bit" I can understand a political decision being made that Labour cannot make those sorts of promises and not have it used against them. The story has to be "Tory's can't be trusted to be fair to critical workers", not "more Labour debt"
Lots of folk still believe the Cameron/Osbourne claim that it was Labour spending pre 2008 that "They had to sort out with Austerity" I don't think Labour are on firm ground when it comes to public spending promises.
The laziest attack line for any Tory MP is “Labour’s profligate and unrealistic spending pledges” they say it each and every time
But what's the alternative? Saying nothing just creates a vacuum and makes it look like Labour has no alternative to offer.
But what’s the alternative?
We're years away from an election, I don't think there's no point in setting out an alternative, it's not like people have a choice...There's just a message that this govt are corrupt, incompetent, and can't be trusted.
He could have, but it’s easy to guess why he didn’t. The laziest attack line for any Tory MP is “Labour’s profligate and unrealistic spending pledges” they say it each and every time. Given that we’ve just spent huge amounts of money propping up the economy, and people (however wrongly) understand the message of “we’ve got to tighten our belts a bit” I can understand a political decision being made that Labour cannot make those sorts of promises and not have it used against them. The story has to be “Tory’s can’t be trusted to be fair to critical workers”, not “more Labour debt”
Ah, this is exactly why they need to get away from their Fiscal Credibility rule rubbish.
The limit to spending is not the amount of spending.
It's real resources, employment and inflation. (And not just the minor uptick we have currently.)
The point being just because we spent a few quid in the pandemic is an example of how you can put government spending to work. The limit on that isn't "we've spent a lot - therefore we can't spend more."
Tightening our belts is not the solution. Examples of Goverments both stateside and here shows time and time again austerity and trying to balance the books makes no sense for a currency issuer.
Labour never come out on top when they try and become the party of fiscal prudence. The Tories will always win the war on that despite clearly being inefficient spenders.
The argument on here of play it safe against the Tories hasn't been cutting through. So I'm not convinced Starmer's wishy washy neolibral approach to dealing with the finances is actually doing them any good.
We’re years away from an election, I don’t think there’s no point in setting out an alternative, it’s not like people have a choice…There’s just a message that this govt are corrupt, incompetent, and can’t be trusted.
But we're not are we?
I could think of no better time than the last few months to start building a case against the government. The opposition have wasted this.
Ah, this is exactly why they need to get away from their Fiscal Credibility rule rubbish.
["Devils' advocate"]
Ah, Labour are scared by the truth, so they want you to trust in their financial jiggery-pokery to bend the rules and blind you with smoke and mirrors, just like they did in 2008 and it all came crashing down around them, and everyone in Britain paid the price. The good and sensible folk of Britain know that you can't spend beyond your means, any prudent housewife can tell you that.
[/"Devils' advocate"]
Say it in a Boris Johnson voice for maximum effect....
He said the government should at least stick to their own 2.1%, rather than dump it.
So he still cited 2.1%.
Nothing to see here.
The opposition have wasted this.
I don't disagree, they've been all over the place.
The opposition have wasted this.
I agree with that. We need to be realistic and not expect a detailed manifesto and alternative first budget at this point though. That needs to come in an election year. I also happen to think a new leader is needed in that election year. Starmer could change my mind on that point, but he hasn't yet, and he's had plenty of time and opportunity to do so.
Ah, Labour are scared by the truth, so they want you to trust in their financial jiggery-pokery to bend the rules and blind you with smoke and mirrors, just like they did in 2008 and it all came crashing down around them, and everyone in Britain paid the price. The good and sensible folk of Britain know that you can’t spend beyond your means, any prudent housewife can tell you that.
They didn't defend themselves enough in that era. Certainly against a Global recession - they just rolled over. What with Liam Byrne in the room as his stupid joke note.
I agree Labour are having a hard time moving away from tax and spend. But tax and spend has not done them any favours has it?
I regularly chat with James Meadway one of Labours previous senior economic advisors - and he is all about balancing the books. He's completely at odds with the way the economy actually works. My take is Labour don't employ the right economic advisors. And to win they need to.
I'm going to stick this here again. Sorry.
https://www.ted.com/talks/stephanie_kelton_the_big_myth_of_government_deficits
It's the way forward.
And to win they need to.
Again, don't disagree, I think it will take longer still than the coming election for Labour to overcome this. In the meantime, attacking this govt on it's obvious failings seems to me at least to be 1. Honest, and 2. becoming the view of many many voters (including left wing Tories )
There’s just a message that this govt are corrupt, incompetent, and can’t be trusted.
Which is what Labour has been saying, and we all know how well that's working for them. it just smacks of an opposition who can't come up with any ideas of their own.
it just smacks of an opposition who can’t come up with any ideas of their own.
That's one way of looking at it, it's also a pretty effective way of getting people to think about a government in a particular way. Keep on banging the drum...
That's the thing about ideological voting vs. voting a different way because you don't much like the present lot. They count just the same.
Definitely no purge or war on the left. Bloody tinfoil helmeted lefties!
https://twitter.com/kateosbornemp/status/1438926394701094913?s=21
Definitely no purge or war on the left. Bloody tinfoil helmeted lefties!
One case or a hundred? We don't even know what the allegations were (probably rightly)
Labour at war with itself is no good for anyone
Another conspiracy theory
When the source is Owen Jones of course it is, just might not be the conspiracy that you are thinking of
Some people are saying it's her tweeting in support of RLB when she was accused of anti semitism but who knows.
When the source is Owen Jones of course it is, just might not be the conspiracy that you are thinking of
What does that mean? Whatever you might think of Owen Jones I doubt he's just making stuff up.
Here we go folks, research by the right wing of the Labour party shows that Labour need to appeal more to Tory voters. Who'd have thunk it?
If they want to win an election of course they do. They are the swing voters and the only voters that used to matter. The sort of people who swung for Blair and then stayed a while.
Unfortunately the non swinging "Labour for ever" voters also now need to be appealed to as they switched to Tory but guess they could swing back as Brexit and Corbyn are in the past.
What does that mean? Whatever you might think of Owen Jones I doubt he’s just making stuff up.
He's an activist, he has an agenda (which admittedly moves around a lot) so he can't be seen as a dispassionate source of information rigorous in shedding any spin
When the source is Owen Jones of course it is, just might not be the conspiracy that you are thinking of
The source is not Owen Jones but a Labour MP.
Here we go folks, research by the right wing of the Labour party shows that Labour need to appeal more to Tory voters. Who’d have thunk it?
Not really rocket surgery is it?
It specifically says ‘soft’ Tory voters. Who did you expect them to have to target to be in with a chance of winning a majority in our two-party FPTP electoral system?
Neo-nazi’s, Russian ex-pats? disaffected Scottish nationalists? Green Party members who’ve just decided they actually fancy eating steak and buying a Range Rover?
There are plenty of people who normally vote Tory who are absolutely appalled at Johnson’s Nationalist Populist Blue-KIP, but were never going to vote for a Labour Party led by Corbyn.
The Lib Dem’s just picked up a lot of their votes at the last by-election
Energy market is looking good...
Let's keep banging them neoliberal policies out there.
Will Starmzy allude to any state ownership of the energy supply sector. Be a great opportunity wouldn't it?
But no he won't, as above in Binners' drunken rants - he needs to appeal to Tory sensibility of supporting market economics. (A big fat dead end.)
It's a double fail: he doesn't draw the Tory votes in and he supports all the trappings of the market.
Lose / Lose.
There are plenty of people who normally vote Tory who are absolutely appalled at Johnson’s Nationalist Populist Blue-KIP, but were never going to vote for a Labour Party led by Corbyn.
And yet there are plenty of people that appear to keep supporting Tory that don't want Starmer despite his Tory supporting coalition.
The Lib Dem’s just picked up a lot of their votes at the last by-election
The Lib Dems currently appear to be doing a better job of criticising the government than Labour.
So you think British politics needs one hard right party, and two centrist parties, and no left wing party at all?
If so many people want centrist politics why aren't the lib dems more popular?
So you think British politics needs one hard right party, and two centrist parties, and no left wing party at all?
If so many people want centrist politics why aren’t the lib dems more popular?
2nd question first: historically they've not been that unpopular in terms of vote share, just seats won and that's despite being er lib dems. A full on lefty socialist party, that I'd vote for in a PR system, could probably perform similarly once its had chance to establish itself. But we don't have PR. To win in FPTP a party has to include a broad spectrum, and have a strong constituency base able to mobilise voters. Enough of an answer?
Energy market is looking good…
Just when labour's policy of bringing energy under common ownership is being proved right, Starmer uses it to stoke more infighting and have an argument with one of his senior shadow cabinet members. His incompetence knows no limits.
https://twitter.com/JamesMills1984/status/1439840786179317761?s=20
The Lib Dems currently appear to be doing a better job of criticising the government than Labour.
Tory MPs are doing a better job of criticising the government than labour!
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1439877076820049922?s=20
Just when labour’s policy of bringing energy under common ownership is being proved right
Milliband was passionate in his assertion about public ownership last week. Is that not policy then?
As it stands, it looks like the government is about to underwrite the energy firms (with taxpayers money) but not nationalise them. Truly the worst of both worlds.
Oh, and you know how Starmer is the darling of remainer FBPE types? Well it would now appear he had a major role, or was perhaps singularly responsible for crashing a deal that would have provided a soft brexit and prevented Boris from ousting May.
perhaps singularly responsible for crashing a deal t
"perhaps" doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. From your link:
Gibb told Ashcroft: “there were briefings to the BBC’s Today programme saying that the cross-party talks are going nowhere. I’d get a call from the BBC saying, ‘I believe the talks are on the verge of collapse.’ ‘Well, who have you spoken to?’, I’d say. ‘Can’t say. It’s official sources’. He is convinced the negative briefings came from Starmer or his team, and that the mixed messages highlighted conflicting attitudes within the Labour delegation
...so I guess that settles it. Brexit is Starmer's fault based on a blog report of a book written by someone who was told that someone in the bbc said someone had said to someone else said that startmer or someone in his team said... Really? Really really?
Are you suggesting that 'Colonel Despard’s Radical Comment' isn't the go-to destination for accurate and impartial 'news'?
Or relying Michael Ashcroft the former deputy leader of the Conservative party writing an entirely truthful, unbiased and well researched biography of Kier Starmer.