Forum menu
Are you suggesting that ‘Colonel Despard’s Radical Comment’ isn’t the go-to destination for accurate and impartial ‘news’?
No I'm suggesting that everything that has happened in the past four years is easily understandable within the context of the right wing of the labour party using extreme tactics which are not in the interests of the party or the working people it represents, in order to win a factional battle against the membership. This account supports that, past events support that, and everything they're now doing from purging members and intimidating MPs supports that.
The labour right are destroying any hope of deposing Johnson and the tory party from power in favour of winning a factional war against their own membership. FFS Iain Duncan Smith is currently providing more opposition to the UC cut than Starmer is, what more do you need to know?
Contact! Wait out.
Jarvis is starting manoeuvres
https://order-order.com/2021/09/20/dan-jarvis-to-stand-down-as-south-yorkshire-mayor/
I imagine he'll be very active at conference
I see the usual gang are still here trying to keep the dream of a socialist utopia alive, fair enough, if you had:
it would work, but in reality none of the main parties and their respective left/right wings want PR because it actually means sharing power with others. So:that I’d vote for in a PR system
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?
You are stuck with this, having to compromise in other ways to win. That's the reality, I'm not sorry if it rather messes up peoples fantasies.
You are stuck with this, having to compromise in other ways to win. That’s the reality, I’m not sorry if it rather messes up peoples fantasies.
Yes, some of us get that while others just call us doom mongers for living in the reality of Britain (the voters and the voting system).
it would work, but in reality none of the main parties and their respective left/right wings want PR because it actually means sharing power with other
Aside from this isnt obviously true. For Labour there was a strong group for PR prior to 97 and it was in the manifesto. Sadly Straw and a few others managed to convince Blair not to go for it although the pro-pr group did succeed in all the other election types.
Given the previous outcome I am not sure Straw ideological successors would succeed this time round.
The only ones really opposed to it are those on the hard right who see it as the only real way of keeping power.
I see the usual gang are still here trying to keep the dream of a socialist utopia alive
For now we'd be happy with a Labour Party that's noticeably to the left of the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats
The only ones really opposed to it are those on the hard right who see it as the only real way of keeping power.
Wrong.
For now we’d be happy with a Labour Party that’s noticeably to the left of the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats
I'd like that as well, but elections aren't going to be won that way at the moment.
I was wondering about Jarvis… saw him on the news the other evening and thought… “He’s been quiet”. Is there an obvious seat for him to try and win before the next election? Or is he, like most contenders, looking at a post general election loss stab at the big job? Labour really should replace Starmer before then, but we know it’s unlikely. Labour is not the flexible tactical beast that the Tory party is.
Oh, and Clive Lewis is right about PR… why we need it and how we get it.
But we’re going the other way. Johnson is managing to undo sensible voting systems for English mayoral elections and installing FPTP for all English local elections. Without any need to consult or hold a referendum. Just BAM… the election system has changed in a way that benefits his party unfairly and returns winning candidates opposed by the majority of their constituents. Worse representation.
I was wondering about Jarvis… saw him on the news the other evening and thought… “He’s been quiet”. Is there an obvious seat for him to try and win before the next election?
He's already a MP
He's been doubling up as a mayor
I’d like that as well, but elections aren’t going to be won that way at the moment.
So Labour should occupy the same ground as the Tories? What on earth would be the point of asking people to switch from coke to Pepsi?
So Labour should occupy the same ground as the Tories? What on earth would be the point of asking people to switch from coke to Pepsi?
This is pretty obvious to me too. Also the contradiction of despising the Tories but wanting using them as a template for voting success. Beggars belief.
How do you push against the damage they've done without a vision that perhaps treads in a different direction?
Energy...
Starmer Pledge No.5
"Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system"
NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME.
He’s been doubling up as a mayor
That’s a bit cheeky.
So Labour should occupy the same ground as the Tories? What on earth would be the point of asking people to switch from coke to Pepsi?
I would argue it's where you get elected but the direction of travel is different afterwards. To legislate you need 326+, anything else is tinkering at the edges.
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water;
To do so straight away would be bonkers, you would be paying top dollar to buy out the shareholders. The way to do it is to force them to meet proper asset standards, meet environmental legislation, and to expose mismanagement where it exists. Then nationalise piecemeal as the shareholders ask to surrender their appointments for free.
end outsourcing in our NHS,
Nationalising GPs and dentists?
local government
Small tinker with the rules does that, a lot of LAs have brought services back in house
and justice system”
Just needs a load of cash to modernise properly
NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME.
To be fair he may be waiting for conference
Nationalising GPs and dentists?
Be a damn good idea. One that should have been done decades ago.
Left policies are popular but the RW media will monster anyone who is seen as a threat.
Looks like the Labour chatter is that the Leadership may be looking to push through conference a change to revert to electoral colleges rather than one member one vote
To be fair he may be waiting for conference
No excuse. Good media timing is not just conference.
Why can't he do it now when it's in the news and attack the Tories?
It's a peldge remember.
Why can’t he do it now when it’s in the news and attack the Tories?
No idea,
some will probably think it's all an establishment plot to keep labour out of office with Starmer as the blairite advised stooge working on his next career rather than leading labour
<blockquoteSo Labour should occupy the same ground as the Tories? What on earth would be the point of asking people to switch from coke to Pepsi?
This is pretty obvious to me too.
Blimey. Whereas I'd assume it was meant as a joke/troll. Can you really not tell the difference between Labour and our current government?
There's a few on this thread, who simply don't want to see Labour in power and so are useful idiots for the Tories. (I mean not that useful obviously given it's a politics thread on stw.)
So Labour should occupy the same ground as the Tories? What on earth would be the point of asking people to switch from coke to Pepsi?
This is pretty obvious to me too. Also the contradiction of despising the Tories but wanting using them as a template for voting success. Beggars belief.
Tried it your way with Milliband and Corbyn...look at the results.
So, If you can demonstrate how Labour are going to beat the voting system to win in another way, rather than courting 'soft tories', I'm listening.
So, If you can demonstrate how Labour are going to beat the voting system to win in another way, rather than courting ‘soft tories’, I’m listening.
Corbyn substantially improved Labour's position in 2017, despite his baggage, personal unpopularity and limited leadership skills. My hope was that Starmer would combine those evidently popular policies with more professional leadership. I've been sorely disappointed.
Chasing the Tories ever further to the right is an electoral dead end because people will just vote for the real thing.
Blimey. Whereas I’d assume it was meant as a joke/troll. Can you really not tell the difference between Labour and our current government?
I'm sure you know the trouble with assumptions.
Corbyn substantially improved Labour’s position in 2017
He lost
Twice. The second time, catastrophically
Thats the only metric that matters
Anyway... with whats happened in this country over the last few years, 2017 is another planet. You carry on fighting the war before the war before last if you like. I'd rather the labour party didn't
I see the usual gang are still here trying to keep the dream of a socialist utopia alive
What does this mean? Can you explain what you think it means? It would be helpful if we understood what we're meant to think. 😀
There’s a few on this thread, who simply don’t want to see Labour in power and so are useful idiots for the Tories. (I mean not that useful obviously given it’s a politics thread on stw.)
Well, some of us keep trying to tell the Armresters that becoming the Tory Party Mk2 isn't a very good idea, as it'll lose you both the votes of the 'Lefties', and those who'd vote for the 'real' tory party anyway, but they don't seem to want to actually listen to anything other than their own rhetoric...
So, If you can demonstrate how Labour are going to beat the voting system to win in another way, rather than courting ‘soft tories’, I’m listening.
At the end of the day the labour party needs votes from some of the people who voted conservative last time, you know, the facist, racist, xenophobic bigots etc *
If someone can demonstrate the electoral maths that gets labour to 326+ without them I'd be excited to see it.
* Copyright of the left
There’s a few on this thread, who simply don’t want to see Labour in power
Some of us want labour in power so that they can change the political and economic system to work in the interests of working people rather than a tiny few rich people, whereas others (I think we know who) just want labour in power so that they can feel warm and rosy about 'their' side winning like after a football match.
If labour are not going to change anything, then there's really no point them being in power. It's that simple.
You carry on fighting the war before the war before last if you like.
Says the man who thinks 1997 new labour politics is the way to beat the tories. 😄
He lost
Twice. The second time, catastrophically
Thats the only metric that matters
Anyway… with whats happened in this country over the last few years, 2017 is another planet. You carry on fighting the war before the war before last if you like. I’d rather the labour party didn’t
I'm aware of the results, branes. The point, for the hard of thinking, is that he put them in a far better position in 2017, so it's worth looking at why and seeing if it can be built on.
Alternatively, if you think 2017 is too long ago we can on the same grounds safely dispense with the crap about reinventing Blairism.
What do you propose instead?
At the end of the day the labour party needs votes from some of the people who voted conservative last time
This for me, is the start middle and finish of it. Without the soft right, centre ground folks (call them what you like) the Labour party will keep on losing in FPTP elections until the heat death of the sun.
My hope was that Starmer would combine those evidently popular policies with more professional leadership. I’ve been sorely disappointed.
Yep, same for me.
If labour are not going to change anything, then there’s really no point them being in power.
Doubled health spending when last in govt. Don't make me repeat the list of undersung achievements. Apparently you can't tell the difference between labour and Tory, or think a starmer government would be so similar to a Johnson one (a Johnson govt ffs!) that you don't think it would be worth voting for? You are,let's say, misguided at best.
Doubled health spending when last in govt.
And to think I was told that 2017 was too long ago...
Surprised no-one's mentioned Marshal Starmsky's electoral college disenfranchising the membership. One MP equals 2000 members' votes!
Surprised no-one’s mentioned Marshal Starmsky’s electoral college disenfranchising the membership. One MP equals 2000 members’ votes!
Average MP represents 60,000 voters
To be honest if conference is going to be internally focused then both labour and Starmer are doomed to opposition and failure
Doubled health spending when last in govt.
And are still seen as to blame for the health service's failings. One of the oft quoted voter messages from the 2019 election was 'well labour didn't do anything for the NHS when they had the chance'. The other was 'labour just throw money at stuff without fixing anything'.
If spending more money is the only thing a prospective labour government can promise, then they'll never win power, especially in an environment where the current tory govt are spending more money than any government since the war.
Doubled health spending when last in govt.
Only by introducing privatised services, which unsurprisingly cost at least double what the NHS services did. And lined the pockets of Tony's mates...
Apparently you can’t tell the difference between labour and Tory, or think a starmer government would be so similar to a Johnson one (a Johnson govt ffs!) that you don’t think it would be worth voting for? You are,let’s say, misguided at best.
So; please tell us how a Starmer led government would be radically different to this Johnson led one? Do you really think it'll be Armrest actually in control?
Some of us want labour in power so that they can change the political and economic system to work in the interests of working people rather than a tiny few rich people, whereas others (I think we know who) just want labour in power so that they can feel warm and rosy about ‘their’ side winning like after a football match.
If labour are not going to change anything, then there’s really no point them being in power. It’s that simple.
Is about the long and short of it, really.
Do you really think it’ll be Armrest actually in control?
As Dominic Cummings found out, once someone is PM they hold all the cards. Labour is slightly different as policies can be more grass roots in origin
Who do you think will be controling Starmer?
Surprised no-one’s mentioned Marshal Starmsky’s electoral college disenfranchising the membership. One MP equals 2000 members’ votes!
Indeed. He clearly anticipates the need to save his own skin.
Who do you think will be controling Starmer?
Oh, that'll be the Puppet Masters™ of course! 😀
Oh, that’ll be the Puppet Masters™ of course!
Who? Name them, real names, go on, if you know they exist you must know who they are.
Who? Name them, real names, go on, if you know they exist you must know who they are.
Ok then (although I've already done this more than once on this thread...):
https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2013/02/shadow-power-list
Old article, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what the real power structures that govern our society are.
Bit of Socialist Worker for you as well if you want:
https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44695/Who+really+rules+Britain
And even some Owen Jones if you can be bothered:
But that's not what you wanted me to say, is it? Never mind. At least you'll have learned something today though. 😀
Ok then (although I’ve already done this more than once on this thread…):
Still waiting for names, if they are telling people to do things they have a name. What are the names of the people who will "be controling Starmer?". Who is picking up the phone? Having the lunch? Sending the email/WhatsApp?
Surely the left have a list of them?
Still waiting for names, if they are telling people to do things they have a name.
Lol! You're funny.
😀
Those links are just a list of the usual suspects of traditional lefty bogeymen.
That Owen Jones link was a summary of a book he wrote in 2014. I've actually read that book and theres little if anything about the labour party. Its about the Boris Johnson/David Cameron/George Osbourne Eton/Oxbridge sect
Where's the link to Starmer then? Or are you just classing every single politician other than the sainted one and Richard Burgon as 'The Establishment'?
'Puppetmasters' indeed?
Its all just more speculative, paranoid, tinfoil-helmeted nonsense
In fact, that Socialist Worker guff is the dictionary definition of speculative, paranoid, tinfoil-helmeted nonsense
As B&D has just asked: who are these shadowy people with a hotline to the present labour leadership via which they exert total control? Lets have some names...
Ok. You can lead a horse to water...
Do you Armresters/Blairites really not know that our society is run by people with lots of economic power? Who do you think really controls society then?
Clue: it's not the electorate.
Have you read the Owen Jones book?
It's actually a good read. And some of the links are truly shocking. Well... they were in 2014. Not so much in 2021 when we're just completely desensitised to a PM who just appoints all his chums to the cabinet then uses a pandemic to dish out billions to his mates
I'm not disputing any of that
I'm asking what on earth any of this has got to do with Keir Starmer and the present Labour leadership?
Lets have some names…
I've literally linked to an actual article with actual names in it!!! 😀 Lol!
Its all just more speculative, paranoid, tinfoil-helmeted nonsense
But that's what you say about anything you disagree with. Without actually proving why it's 'paranoid tinfoil-helmeted nonsense'. Even when it's actual fact. Because it's easier to abuse and demonise anyone with whom you disagree, than actually enter into any sort of meaningful debate.
Isn't it?
I’m asking what on earth any of this has got to do with Keir Starmer and the present Labour leadership?
Who do you think Armrest thinks is more important; Labour members, the electorate, or corporate power?
Oh this is a bit embarrassing:
Oops.
I’ve actually read that book and theres little if anything about the labour party.
I've read it too and you only give half the story. Jones' central point is that the establishment cuts across party lines in order to protect itself. Whilst they are natural allies of the tories, they have no problem working with compliant labour MPs, union bosses and others. In fact his point is that rather than being overtly manipulated, labour MPs and others in the party will voluntarily acquiesce to interests of the establishment because they will personally benefit from it or because they fear the consequences of being on the outside.
Far from being a leftist conspiracy theory, what happened to Corbyn is confirmation of how this all works. Do what's expected of you and you will be tolerated, but threaten the power and wealth of those who possess it and you'll be destroyed. The only real surprise was how close Corbyn came to overturning the orthodoxy, and unfortunately we'll never know just how much of a missed opportunity that was.
Fair enough. I give up.
Absolutely everyone involved in politics is completely and utterly corrupt and rotten to the core, in it purely for the backhanders taken in return to subjugating the workers
Apart from Jeremy Corbyn, obviously
Absolutely everyone involved in politics is completely and utterly corrupt and rotten to the core
No they’re just terrified of upsetting the people you don’t think exist. That’s how hidden power works. It doesn’t require a conspiracy, just the fear and cowardice of your opponents. And you’ll not find a more fearful and cowardly group of people than the PLP.
No they’re just terrified of upsetting the people you don’t think exist.
The ones you and Bridges can't name
If they exist start stating their names....
You know, John Bull, Belgravia, etc
The ones you and Bridges can’t name
If they exist start stating their names….
Um.... Bridges linked to an article with loads of names in it. Two articles in fact. Do you and binners struggle with reading?
Um…. Bridges linked to an article with loads of names in it.
Have you read it? Their illuminati status is somewhat undermined by the fact that none of them are still in post. Sure there are new chairs of british gas, tesco etc, but I doubt they're spending a lot of time on labour party internal politics and policy.
And secondly, director of science programmes at the Wellcome Trust? A big important international science funder for sure, but really. I'd do a 'lol' if it wouldn't look dangerously like Bridges laughing at their own humor. These are not the shadowy controllers of starmer.
In fact there's nothing very shadowy at all about the exercise of power with our current government, it's absolutely blatant. You need to stop saying how bad labour are and focus on the actual problem.
These are not the shadowy controllers of starmer.
Well the second link included people who've made large illegal/improperly declared donations to a labour lobby group linked to Starmer, but you've conveniently ignored that of course.
You need to stop saying how bad labour are and focus on the actual problem.
Starmer is part of the same system. Labour get into power and we get to feel a bit better about ourselves/society meanwhile the same neo-liberal bs happens just with friendlier sounding people in charge. Forgive me for not getting excited about that.
One of Labour's biggest donors is a hedge fund manager (which they tried to keep secret):
The Bureau can reveal that Labour’s third largest individual cash donor since the last election helps run Nevsky Capital, a hedge fund based near Bond Street in Mayfair, west London.
It has previously held significant stakes in controversial Russian energy companies Gazprom and Lukoil. And according to its latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US, it held $15m of shares in United Health at the end of last year.
United Health, a huge US health insurance firm worth £76bn, is one of several companies currently bidding for a £1.2bn NHS contract for end of life care.
Taylor gave £100,000. In 2015, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed him to be a Mayfair hedge fund manager who had given the party more than £600,000. He has given Labour Together £806,992 since October 2015, and gave Starmer £95,000 in March 2020 during the Labour leadership contest.[which was also kept secret]
Then there's our old friend Trevor Chinn of BICOM again.
Another of the directors of Labour Together is another familiar face Steve Reed, he of 'calling a jewish tory donor a puppet master and totally getting away with it' fame.
Have you read it? Their illuminati status is somewhat undermined by the fact that none of them are still in post. Sure there are new chairs of british gas, tesco etc, but I doubt they’re spending a lot of time on labour party internal politics and policy.
Once again, point missed spectacularly by those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of how our society is actually run. Which is that large corporate and economic interests wield far more power than the electorate, and dictate how they want things run, in their own interests. 'Democracy' is little more than a sideshow. Which is why people like Starmer will be concentrating far more on how yo court such corporate entities, rather than actually worrying about what party members, or the electorate, actually want. If the head of Tescos say's 'jump', politicians generally ask 'how high'. That's how it works. That some on here seem unwilling to understand or accept this, is really quite disturbing.
In fact there’s nothing very shadowy at all about the exercise of power with our current government, it’s absolutely blatant. You need to stop saying how bad labour are and focus on the actual problem.
I've asked repeatedly, how things would be different to the current status quo, under Starmer, but as yet, none of you Armresters have actually given an answer. Why is that? Is it really because you know nothing much will actually change? And perhaps you don't really want it to change; I suspect that's a big part of it. You're small c conservatives, who are actually fairly happy with the status quo, as your lives aren't adversely affected too much. And that pretending to want 'change' from tory rule is nothing more than virtue signalling. I think that's actually closer to the truth than you can even admit to yourselves.
One of Labour’s biggest donors is a hedge fund manager (which they tried to keep secret):
Why bother? Even with a mountain of evidence, the Armresters still think their clean-shaven messiah can do no wrong. In fact, one could even say that their devotion is almost cult-like....
Starmer is part of the same system. Labour get into power and we get to feel a bit better about ourselves/society meanwhile the same neo-liberal bs happens just with friendlier sounding people in charge. Forgive me for not getting excited about that.
If you have that perspective then you aren't going to make things change
One of Labour’s biggest donors is a hedge fund manager (which they tried to keep secret):
How influence do they get for that money when the Union funding dwarfs it? The cooperative party donates more. If I was Starmer I'd be working hard to shore those donations up rather than the honey trap of hedge fund managers.
Or are they taking them for a ride? Rubber chicken lunch with Starmer who just nods away and then has the real chats with the traditional funders?
I’ve asked repeatedly, how things would be different to the current status quo, under Starmer, but as yet, none of you Armresters have actually given an answer. Why is that?
As the current policy of renationalisation of billions of £ 's of assets is still there I would suggest fairly major changes.
Even with a mountain of evidence, the Armresters still think their clean-shaven messiah can do no wrong. In fact, one could even say that their devotion is almost cult-like….
Do you read this thread? Starmer has moved from "a new hope" to FFS fairly quickly. If he doesn't have a good conference then he's just going to nudge along until put out of his misery
The bigger issue is that if he goes Richard Burgon might have a shot at the leadership.....
And that pretending to want ‘change’ from tory rule is nothing more than virtue signalling.
Voting for labour isn't virtue signalling, the left not voting labour is virtue signalling
but as yet, none of you Armresters have actually given an answer.
to whom are you addressing this? As far as I know there's no one on this thread who actually thinks he's doing a decent job.
As the current policy of renationalisation of billions of £ ‘s of assets is still there I would suggest fairly major changes.
There have been mutterings that this policy isn't popular with Labour's um..... backers... so I don't expect it to last.
There have been mutterings that this policy isn’t popular with Labour’s um….. backers… so I don’t expect it to last.
The unions love it
Voting for labour isn’t virtue signalling, the left not voting labour is virtue signalling
No; voting where your conscience takes you is called Freedom of Democracy. Ask your mate Keir what that actually means; he doesn't seem to have much of an idea....
How influence do they get for that money when the Union funding dwarfs it?
Unions represent the interests of actual workers, not private wealth. Union representation comes through democratic processes; again, ask your mate Keir what Democracy means. So union funding SHOULD be far greater than private donations. Armrest seems more interested in courting private wealth than bothering with unions though.
As the current policy of renationalisation
Corbyn's policy, you mean? That Armrest seems loathe to actually fully commit to...
Do you read this thread?
Yes. That's why I remember that you Armresters continually fail to actually answer any questions put to you, and instead just drone on about how it's all Corbyn/the Left's fault or some other such crap. And it's why I don't need something explained repeatedly, unlike yourself, as I had to do that earlier.
The bigger issue is that if he goes Richard Burgon might have a shot at the leadership…..
I'd vote for that, if only to see the bedwetters on here lose their shit. 😀
If you have that perspective then you aren’t going to make things change
Whereas if you have the perspective that things will change under armrest, then you're seriously deluded.
No they’re just terrified of upsetting the…
People whose votes they need if they are ever to be in government again.
Starmer is part of the same system.
He really isn’t. But he is in the position of having to take flak based on the actions of other politicians, past and present, from some quarters, using this lazy “they’re all the same” nonsense. As will the next party leader.
He really isn’t.
Well that's a well-reasoned response to clear evidence that he is.
Do I think Keir Starmer is a much better person than BJ? Of course, but I doubt it would make much difference.
I’d vote for that, if only to see the bedwetters on here lose their shit.
Rapidly coming to the conclusion that you’re a right winger playing a part here. Your every post reads like a right winger’s jokey idea of what a petulant left winger could be like, rather then expressing the attitude and language of any genuine left winger I know.
John McDonald trying to stop the Starmer reforms "grubby stitch-up deals" etc on Radio 4 this morning and I imagine a tour of studios
Starmer is going to have a battle at conference which is going to distract from getting a external message out.
He is also in danger of making Labour look not only focussed inwards, but also backwards. They need to reform the way they elect the leader, it’s too slow and inflexible. But any new system that, even if only on the surface, looks like the system they had before the Miliband reforms will make Labour look like a party going backwards.
Question - the Labour voters who can't vote Labour because of Starmer and his puppet masters, who are you voting for and what do you think will be achieved from your vote?
Your question expresses my thinking, kerley. A SKS Labour Party is currently not "wow-ing" me, but I wouldn't give anyone else my vote as it feels wasted until we get some kind of PR system (if ever...)
Who: Plaid Cymru
Why: FREEDOM!
NB. I'm in a pretty tight seat so may end up voting Labour.
Question – the Labour voters who can’t vote Labour because of Starmer and his puppet masters, who are you voting for and what do you think will be achieved from your vote?
If you're genuinely interested, you could rephrase your question to be less loaded.
They need to reform the way they elect the leader
maybe they do. But, folk are worrying about heating prices going up, lack of food on the table and prices of food going up, on-going COVID19 job issues , cost of living increases, loss of benefits and a tax hike in the spring, and I don't hear Starmer holding Johnson to account on these things.
If you’re genuinely interested, you could rephrase your question to be less loaded.
It is a great example of the disdain for democratic choice though. The classic "well you have no one else to vote for so tough shit". Missing the fact that approach was the new labour one last time round and plenty of people found other parties that did, at least, pretend to represent them preferable.
I'll rephrase it
Question – the Labour voters and people who identify as left wing who can’t vote Labour because of Starmer, who are you voting for and what do you think will be achieved from your vote?
, folk are worrying about heating prices going up, lack of food on the table and prices of food going up, on-going COVID19 job issues , cost of living increases, loss of benefits and a tax hike in the spring, and I don’t hear Starmer holding Johnson to account on these things.
Kuensberg was doing his job for him last night on the BBC, though I did wonder if her old pal and "source at No10" Cummings had put her up to it.
Starmers complete failure to be seen to holding the government's feet to the fire over their failure to manage the impact of Brexit and Covid has been utterly embarrassing. He could have done it without undermining the "will of the people" or "playing politics" with the pandemic.
He'll never win over the diehard Tory supporters, so what. He's missing the opportunity to win over the waiverers and disenfranchised he needs to kick the Tories
It is a great example of the disdain for democratic choice though.
It reflects the reality of the way we implement democracy. If your party isn't on the ballot paper you can't vote for it. If your party can't get 326+ seats directly or indirectly you aren't the government, if you aren't the government you aren't legislating, if you aren't legislating you cannot make significant changes to the way the country is run
The classic “well you have no one else to vote for so tough shit”.
I'm in the "least worst" club most of the time, it means I'll vote for a rainbow of parties, sometimes it is a FFS moment, sometimes it's a positive action, sometimes a make a change happen. The sad reality is that my choice is limited to what is on the ballot paper, so yes often there is no-one else to vote for
It reflects the reality of the way we implement democracy.
No it represents a claimed reality. What it actually results in is people chosing not to vote because all the politicians are the same as each other or voting for a change, any change.
I would have thought this belief in the divine right to all left wing votes would have been broken by now.
if you aren’t legislating you cannot make significant changes to the way the country is run
Actually you can by providing a choice and forcing other parties to respond to that. If you simply provide a watered down version of their politics then you dont make them respond in anyway aside from shifting further to the side in order to differentiate.
We can look at the influence UKIP has or even the limited impact of the Green party whose policies have been taken up by the mainstream in order to avoid losing votes there.
In answer to the voting question I'll be voting Lib Dem because Tim Farron is a very good constituency MP and Labour have zero chance here anyway.
Also, unless you're a boomer voting is largely pointless, as we've previously covered.
Rapidly coming to the conclusion that you’re a right winger playing a part here.
What was the thing about ad hominem attacks again?
It looks like the Labour Party Conference is going to be an absolute gift for Boris and the Tory press.
As a winter of food shortages and people struggling with sky-rocketing fuel bills approaches, and with Covid far from over, they'll be able to point at the civil war about to break out and say 'look... look at these mad loony lefties... naval gazing and self-absorbed... banging on about electoral systems and having a scrap with themselves... just imagine if these nutters were in charge?'
An absolutely insane decision to decide to fight that battle now. If it needed to be fought at all. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns
I truly despair of the Labour party. The lot of them. It simply isn't fit to call an opposition. Boris must be laughing his tits off watching this developing car crash.
Rapidly coming to the conclusion that you’re a right winger playing a part here. Your every post reads like a right winger’s jokey idea of what a petulant left winger could be like, rather then expressing the attitude and language of any genuine left winger I know.
Lol! So many comedians on here! 😀