Forum menu
Or do you want him gone and for there to be no Leader of the Opposition at all?
LOL Do you think it would make any difference?!
As I keep saying the problem is the Parliamentary Labour Party, not who is party leader. The reason the PLP is s satisfied with Starmer, and they clearly are, is precisely because he is doing bugger all to challenge the status quo and offer a real alternative to the Tories.
If Starmer was replaced by someone who actually challenged the Tory agenda in a meaningful way and offered a real alternative the PLP would not tolerate it.
Their attitude is nicely summed up here by Tony Blair, and remember they are overwhelmingly Blairites.
Tony Blair has said he would not want a left-wing Labour party to win a general election.
The former prime minister said that even if he thought a left-wing programme was the route to victory, he would not adopt one.
There is no point dealing with the symptoms of the problem if you don't deal with the cause of the problem.
Well, no one here is calling for Tony Blair to replace Starmer. Who do you want to replace him?
Okay you have obviously decided to ignore what I am saying so let's leave it there.
If there genuinely is no sitting Labour MP that you would be happier to have as leader than Starmer, then what do you want to happen?
Their attitude is nicely summed up here by Tony Blair, and remember they are overwhelmingly Blairites.
...he said it six and a half years ago as part of telling people not to vote corbyn in the labour leadership election. I'd be surprised if you can find anyone posting on this thread who would have agreed with that viewpoint then, let alone now. Whatever, I promise to do my best to ignore any further discussion of corbyn.
Zarah Sultana
If there genuinely is no sitting Labour MP that you would be happier to have as leader than Starmer, then what do you want to happen?
I would be happier to have Clive Lewis as leader. He may turn out to be just as shit as Starmer but I doubt it. Of course he won't be leader though will he.
The solution is primaries. Allow the membership a vote preceding every election to decide on candidates who can put themselves forward openly rather than being shortlisted by a central committee. Labour MPs would then be accountable to their constituency membership, rather than shady corporate interests, lobbyists and stalinist party apparatchiks.
Agree with this 100% for choosing someone in a seat without a sitting Labour MP, or where the current Labour MP is standing down. I'm on the fence as regards primaries in seats where there's already an incumbent Labour MP... only because sitting MPs should be accountable to their constituents first, and the constituency membership second... but then there's safe seats... where realistically without members being able to change the MP, they can do pretty much what they hell they like, without regard to constituents anyway. As I said, on the fence.
Zarah Sultana
Is a good example of someone who'd never get through a local primary.
I would be happier to have Clive Lewis as leader.
Same here. Top 10 for me. Starmer would still be top 20 for me by the way, even though he's dull and ineffective. I don't think Labour should wait for him to lose an election to move him on... but likewise, there are many MPs who'd be worse than him... and (perhaps ironically) that's one of the reasons so many MPs still support him. That and a desperation to look united and not give the press the ammunition they love to press the "Labour divided can never run the UK" line.
I would be happier to have Clive Lewis as leader. He may turn out to be just as shit as Starmer but I doubt it. Of course he won’t be leader though will he.
+1
he said it six and a half years ago as part of telling people not to vote corbyn in the labour leadership election.
Which is precisely my point. The problem Tony Blair had with Corbyn wasn't that Corbyn had an allotment or made his own jam, it was that Corbyn was offering a real alternative to the Tories.
It was an attitude widely shared with the PLP and it would not matter who the candidate was. It's about politics, not personalities.
If you are looking for a Labour leader who will be more effective than Starmer and is more prepared to challenge the Tory agenda you are wasting your time. They will not be acceptable to the Blairites in the PLP and they will do whatever is necessary to destroy them.
They would much rather have a Tory prime minister than a Labour prime minister with a radical agenda. Starmer pretty much publicly admitted it a few days ago when he refused to say that he would have rather had Corbyn in Downing Street than Johnson. Even though had Corbyn become PM Starmer would have got his beloved second referendum, such is the hatred they feel for the left.
It is very obvious that the PLP is fully behind Starmer. That is not despite the fact that he is crap at opposing the Tory agenda, it is precisely because he is crap at opposing the Tory agenda. So if you are looking for someone who will do a better job you are wasting your time because that in itself will make them unacceptable to the Blairites who simply want to win an election so that they can continue with the Tory agenda. Or in certain cases such as tax on businesses take it further to the right.
They will not be acceptable to the Blairites in the PLP and they will do whatever is necessary to destroy them.
Yes, yes... that's all very interesting. Who would YOU like to see lead the Labour Party instead of Starmer? Others are prepared to state preferences, and yet acknowledge that they'd probably not get through to be leader (whether blocked by MPs, unions or members)... but just wanting rid of Starmer, with no favoured succession plan at all, smacks of "burn it down, and see what grows".
That is not despite the fact that he is crap at opposing the Tory agenda, it is precisely because he is crap at opposing the Tory agenda.
I'm not sure this is grounded in reality.
Many MPs will (publicly) support the leader 'till there is an opportunity to replace them with someone they think more suitable. I think most currently consider that opportunity is after the next election, and that appearing united (yeah right) will give them the best chance at that election. They might be right... but that isn't (IMHO) a path to winning that next election. Starmer needs to go before it, and, like it or not, his replacement realistically needs to be a sitting MP. Lammy, Lewis, Jarvis, Rayner, MilibandV2... who could step in before the next election and put Labour on a better path? A better path both towards government and once in it (if they pull it off)?
I’m on the fence as regards primaries in seats where there’s already an incumbent Labour MP… only because sitting MPs should be accountable to their constituents first, and the constituency membership second…
The whole problem is that labour MPs can't be challenged if they fail to fulfil their duty to the party membership and their constituents. The whole point of primaries is that incumbent MPs can be challenged. Constituents get their say at the election so there's no lack of accountability. The labour membership however should have the opportunity to challenge an incumbent if they're not happy with them. It works in the US, I fail to see why it wouldn't here. Kate Hoey would have been long gone under a primary system.
Kate Hoey would have been long gone under a primary system.
…but then there’s safe seats… where realistically without members being able to change the MP, they can do pretty much what they hell they like, without regard to constituents anyway. As I said, on the fence.
Hoey should have been kicked out for being onthat boat with Farage. People have been kicked out for less
I agree with Ernies basic thesis
The PLP have lost contact with reality. Believe the myth that Blair won because he was Blair when actually anyone would have won then due to the work done by his predecessors and the total collapse of the tories
They are scared of anything radical because they have become followers not leaders and are scared of the right wing media and also it would mean admitting they have wasted 20 years of their careers going down a blind alley
I also note Cooper has already made a tory style speech on cfriminal justice - ie hang'em and flog 'em
tjagain
Full MemberThe PLP have lost contact with reality. Believe the myth that Blair won because he was Blair when actually anyone would have won then due to the work done by his predecessors and the total collapse of the tories
Honestly I think what the Labour party needs is to get everyone in a room, ask everyone "who thinks Blair made Labour electable" and then throw everyone who puts their hands up into a volcano.
Tony Blair was very very lucky with the first past the post election system and the arithmetic behind it.
In the 2017 general election the Tories received more votes than Labour did in 1997. However in 2017 Theresa May failed to win majority whilst in 1997 Blair won by a landslide.
In the 2019 general election Labour received more votes than they did in the 2005 general election. And yet Blair won the 2005 general election whilst Corbyn massively lost the 2019 general election.
How lucky was all that for Tony Blair?
There are more people, and more voters, in the UK now. We need to remember that when comparing “number of votes” decades apart.
First past the post is a mess though. It’s the elephant in the room. It needs be got rid of for Westminster elections, if we ever want MPs to properly represent is. As someone is banging on about all the time…
Clive Lewis
+2
ie hang’em and flog ’em
will go down a storm in her part of Pontefract. She knows her audience
What did she actually say?
There are more people, and more voters, in the UK now.
The difference is insufficient to explain it.
Labour received three quarters of a million more votes in 2019 than they did in 2005. In 2005 Labour won the general election whilst 2019 was allegedly, according to some, the worse result since 1935.
Do you think the UK electorate double or something in 14 years?
And the Conservatives won over 3 million votes more than Labour in 2019. They won 5 million more than they did in 2005.
Do you think the UK electorate double or something in 14 years?
What led you to concluding that? Did Labour win twice as many votes 14 years later?
Labour do benefit from FPTP greatly compared to other all UK parties, apart from, and this is a very big exception… the Conservative party.
But comparing “number of votes” across the decades is close to meaningless. Still trying to paint wins as losses and losses as wins.
I never voted for Blair, but he never lost. Obviously that wasn’t all down to him. I voted both times for Corbyn, but he lost both times. Also that wasn’t all down to him. But this madness of concentrating on “number of votes cast”, so many years apart, to somehow paint failure as success, shouldn’t have even made it into 2020, never made be dragged into 2022. It’s nonsense.
And the Conservatives won over 3 million votes more than Labour in 2019.
Eh? Are you trying to make my point for me?
Yes well spotted. It is not simply how well Labour does which decides the election result in FPTP but also the performance of the opposition, including how divided it is.
If you want to play around with percentages instead of total votes, because of changing electorate size, the picture is very similar.
In 2005 under Blair Labour received 35% share of the vote and won the general election, whilst under Corbyn in 2017 they received 40% and failed to win the election.
Two years later in 2019 Labour received 32% of the vote, only 3% less than when they won the general election on 2005, and it was, according to some, the worst result since 1935.
I repeat......Tony Blair was very very lucky with the first past the post election system and the arithmetic behind it.
Had an email from Mark Drakeford. I'm happy that refugee housing is being celebrated.
Tom --
In a few moments, I’m going to ask you to make a contribution to the Welsh Labour 2022 Fighting Fund, but first I want to talk to you about our movement, Wales and why it’s so important.
I love this time of year.
The crisp mornings of a Welsh winter; planting bulbs for the spring and the anticipation of the year ahead –we’re less than a month away from a new year, and all the possibilities that come with it.
Next May, there will be local government elections in all 22 council areas in Wales. Welsh Labour currently holds 10 councils in Wales. As the leader of Welsh Labour, I know just how important it is to have a Labour council and I know the work all our councils and councillors do is vital and life-changing.
This year the brilliant Welsh Labour administration in Rhondda Cynon Taf worked to resettle people fleeing the chaos in Afghanistan. They put our Labour values into action, making Wales a Nation of Sanctuary and helping to give families hope for the future.
This is just one example of the many ways our Welsh Labour councils change lives every day.
It’s also an example of what we could lose.
When the Taliban overran Afghanistan, imagine if one of our exceptional Welsh Labour councils had been led by the Tories. We only need to look at the cold shoulder Conservative council leaders have given to refugees across the UK – Labour councils are housing eight times as many refugees as Conservative ones.
The election next year is not just about what we could lose – it is also about the hope of what more we could achieve together.
As we launched our campaign for the Senedd elections earlier this year, I remember being told we were facing the worst result Welsh Labour had ever seen.
Well, they were wrong. The polls were wrong. The people of Wales were right – they put their trust in Welsh Labour.
When our movement pulls together and works towards a common goal, we know we can achieve what others have written off as being too hard. That’s why school children won’t go hungry this Christmas.
That’s why I never give up when people tell me we can’t do it – and why you shouldn’t either.
We’re facing another tough election, but it could also be great. That’s why I’m asking for your help. Will you contribute to our Welsh Labour 2022 Fighting Fund today to help us defend our Welsh Labour Councils and win control of more?
Imagine, a Labour leader who comes across as genuine and compassionate not just a product of focus groups desperate to please the Daily Mail.
I know! Actual morals
For balance Keir's last one to me. It's ok "Promises should not be broken"
Tom,
Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have let you down.
More so than ever, I have been bitterly disappointed in the way this Government has acted over the last few weeks.
A corruption scandal exposed which they tried to cover up.
A cowardly, watered-down plan for dodgy second jobs - which means less than ten MPs would be affected by the rules.
Another broken promise, this time on rail expansion, so thousands of people in the North are left without connectivity to the rest of the country.
The thing is, they think that people won’t notice as they orchestrate the system to benefit themselves rather than others.
But people do notice.
Households notice when they are worse-off due to rising energy bills and tax hikes.
Pensioners notice when Boris Johnson’s social care cap means they have to sell their homes to pay for care.
Commuters notice when they are faced with no public transport to get from A to B.
That is why I do everything I can to hold this corrupt Government to account.
With Labour, working people would be put first.
We would cut energy bills for the winter months so households don’t feel the pinch.
And Labour would clean up the sleaze in Westminster by banning paid consultancies and directorships immediately.
Tom, I know that a brighter future for this country is possible.
Politics should not be mired in corruption.
Public office should not be used for private gain.
Promises should not be broken.
That’s the difference a Labour Government would make.
Thank you,
Keir Starmer
NB "promises should not be broken" was in bold. As was "That is why I do..." & "But people do notice"
And the Conservatives won over 3 million votes more than Labour in 2019. They won 5 million more than they did in 2005.
Yes, because the Lib Dems collapsed. You know, the centrist politics we're told Labour should adopt.
Yes, both main parties benefitted from the collapse of the LibDem vote. Hence both having higher “number of voters” than back in the days when Kennedy was riding high with a policy platform that appealed to many.
Yes, because the Lib Dems collapsed. You know, the centrist politics we’re told Labour should adopt.
For sure.
Think people keep forgetting that centrism doesn't really mean being comfortably in the middle on issues.
It's still rabid market forces, small state with a green marketing campaign.
And how much of a failure this approach is politically and electorally.
Which is why they like joining forces with the Tories against Labour.
Can someone explain to me why labour appear to have given up in North Shropshire when the lib dems were in a distant third place in 2019? It's like they can't be arsed. Or is this just another example of agent Starmer's mission to destroy the labour party?
I don't understand what is happening in North Shropshire either. What is clear however is that the Guardian has thrown its weight behind the LibDems :
And this is where it starts getting confusing. The second sentence of the article says : "Conservative party appears to be losing ground to the Liberal Democrats in North Shropshire".
But if you click on the words "losing ground" it provides a link to a Labour internal poll which shows Labour just 7% behind the Tories whilst the LibDems are allegedly 29% behind the Tories. Which obviously completely undermines the claim being made by the Guardian itself.
So why is the Guardian backing the LibDems? Has the Labour Party given up and if so why?
I know nothing about about the political situation locally but I do know that Labour's North Shropshire candidate who has stood for Labour in the previous 3 general elections and has been a member for more than 40 years was barred by the NEC from even being included in the shortlist :
It would appear to be part of Starmer's ongoing battle against anyone who has in the past supported the previous party leader.
Bearing in mind that Corbyn received more than half of all votes cast when he stood as party leader Starmer and his Blairite cronies have their work cut out taking on a massive chunk of the Labour Party.
I wouldn't be surprised if local party members are so pissed off with the way they have been treated that they can't be arsed campaiging for a Starmer approved candidate, that morale has collapsed, and that Labour has all but given up.
Local campaigning is massively important in by-elections which is why the Liberals/LibDems have historically done well in by-elections - they throw people and resources at them and the fact that they are a small party doesn't give them the disadvantage that general elections do.
The interesting thing is that although on paper North Shropshire is a very safe Tory seat in this by-election the right-wing vote is likely to be split 5 ways..... between the Tories, Reform, UKIP, Reclaim, and Heritage parties.
Big day today Keir. Don’t f*** it up.
Can someone explain to me why labour appear to have given up in North Shropshire
Yeah I can. I lived in Tory country for a while when I was living in Brackley in South Northants. I looked at joining the local Labour party there, and was told in no uncertain terms that while I was welcome to join, there was almost never any funding from Labour central to local grass roots parties in deeply rural areas. Why? There's literally no point, and it would be a waste of everyone's hard earned cash Here's a fun game for all the family; Try to count the amount of farming/rural seats that Labour have won in ooooh, I dunno, the last evelenty billion elections and you'll get to understand why Labour don't fund campaigning in rural England.
If you've never lived in rural England, I don't think you can really grasp the levels of antipathy to the Labour party that almost everyone has as a deep seated belief system. Like the sun rising in the east or autumn following summer
And if you want to be specific about North Shropshire in particular...That has Voted Tory since 1832 Why would you spend any money campaigning in an area that has returned a Tory for the last 200 years?
Ernie
I have seen it said that there was an under the table pact labour/liB dems so that each party got a free run at one of the byelections
I don't know why you're surprised at the Guardian tho. Consistent lib dem supporters
Today is the day the Labour party needs Jess Phillips not Starmer. Someone capable of taking the piss out of a government that's taking the piss.
She's probably on a photo shoot.
Big day today Keir. Don’t f*** it up
Biggest open goal yet.
Lmfao.
That is true Nick. I've lived in rural Northants and have just escaped from Rutland and those inbred deferential attitudes persist. Incredible shoulder shrugging and excusing the inexcusable but it raises the question why does Starmer actively alienate and expel party activists and people with principles in an attempt to win over these numbskulls? They already vote tory they're not going to vote for a tory B-team. Or does he have another agenda?
I don’t know why you’re surprised at the Guardian tho. Consistent lib dem supporters
I am not in the least bit surprised that the Guardian is backing the LibDems.
What surprises me is that the Guardian claims : "Conservative party appears to be losing ground to the Liberal Democrats in North Shropshire”, and then to back up that claim they provide a link to a Labour Party internal poll which shows Labour 7 points behind the Tories and the LibDems trailing 29 points behind.
So yes I find the Guardian providing evidence to undermine the very point that they are trying to make quite surprising, don't you?
They seem to be arguing to split the opposition to guarantee a tory win. There's every chance the tory lead has narrowed further since that poll, Liberals should be voting Labour. The Guardian is one tricky newspaper.
Bloody lawyers, tricksy bastards
https://twitter.com/willgeorgelloyd/status/1468982957750763529?t=6vn66h6XSZEcJzWOxJM4pg&s=19
It is a shame that he can't use his famed skills as a lawyer to tackle the government on legal issues, such as the Nationality and Borders Bill.
Which for me is considerably more important than whether there was a Christmas party in Downing Street last year.
The very fact that Starmer's Labour Party appears far more preoccupied with Christmas parties than the Nationality and Borders Bill means that there is very little public discussion surrounding a particularly pernicious bill which most people, unlike the alleged Downing Street parties, are probably unaware of.
And as Tony Benn once pointed out :
"The way a government treats refugees is very instructive, because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”
The Nationality and Borders Bill represents another power grab by an already autocratic government
Considering its implications, both morally and legal, perhaps Starmer should give it more attention and maybe focus less on PMQs point scoring.
I agree, but maybe he haa a mind as to which gains more traction with Tory voters.
Cooper, Rayner, Starmer and Labour generally have been strong on the dangers and failures of that bill. If you think PMQs shouldn’t have had so much focus on the PM’s lies this week, on a rare occasion where the opposition have so much of the media on side, I can’t agree. If Starmer hadn’t run with this the cries of “where are the opposition, the papers are a better at scrutinising Johnson than Starmer” would have been justifiably loud.
Which for me is considerably more important than whether there was a Christmas party in Downing Street last year.
Yes it is more important for those who understand it and are interested enough to even know what it is but for a lot of people going after the hypocrisy is a stronger attack which will get better results (i.e. getting your party into power where things like that bill wouldn't even exist)
The very fact that Starmer’s Labour Party appears far more preoccupied with Christmas parties than the Nationality and Borders Bill means that there is very little public discussion surrounding a particularly pernicious bill which most people, unlike the alleged Downing Street parties, are probably unaware of.
Or alternatively, Labour have conducted private polling and have discovered that Labour supporters in Red Wall seats are generally supportive of the bill once they understand it. Labour are focussing on the events which are proving difficult for the govt rather than difficult for a Labour party that is likely to be split by the Nationality and Borders Bill.
Or alternatively, Labour have conducted private polling and have discovered that Labour supporters in Red Wall seats are generally supportive of the bill once they understand it.
Are you serious? You think Labour should be focusing its attack on the findings of private polling? The Labour Party is so disconnected from its supporters that it has to conduct polls to find out what they think?
Is that why Starmer chose to leave it to Nick Thomas-Symonds, a politician who most people have never heard of, to criticise the Nationality and Borders Bill, because he was hoping that no one would notice?
And what about David Davis, former Tory Deputy Prime Minister and commited Brexit supporter, did his private polling show that he should attack the government's Nationality and Borders Bill?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/16/offshore-asylum-seekers-david-davis-scrap-plans
I have no doubt that Priti Patel and the rest of the Tory government are fully aware that much of the bill represents pointless and costly nonsense but that its main purpose is to placate column writers in the Daily Mail and Sun newspapers.
And in turn I have no doubt that column writers in the Daily Mail and Sun newspapers are also fully aware that much of the bill represents pointless and costly nonsense that they don't even believe in.
However column/opinion writers in right-wing publications need to justify their own existence and generous salaries. Telling their readers that everything is hunky dory doesn't cut the mustard, they need to be told what they should be angry about. Consequently they trawl the gutters looking for subjects to make people angry about.
And you think that Starmer should follow them into the gutter, or at the very least quietly tut from a distance in the hope that no one will notice?
How has Starmer “followed them into the gutter”? If you followed the debate on the bill, Labour were very clearly opposed to it. Your complaint is that Labour led with stories surrounding the PM directly at PMQs, rather than concentrate on this bill because it is more important… it is more important, but letting the PM off the hook isn’t the path to getting into a position where he can no longer force through such damaging nationalist nonsense with his majority. Starmer, Cooper and Rayner have all been making their opposition to the bill clear beyond parliament as well. Check their social media feeds. That PMQs and traditional media appearances are dominated by Johnson and his lies is not a sign that Labour are quietly ignoring the bill, they are a sign that Johnson is on the defensive, and Labour aren’t running away from an open goal (much to many people’s relief).
The Labour Party is so disconnected from its supporters that it has to conduct polls to find out what they think?
Are you serious? The Labour party has over half a million members, It's not the Borg Collective, how else is it going to discover the thoughts of such a obviously wildly disparate group of people other than by asking them what they think about things?
You'll note what it says about people who voted leave, you'll remember that many northern Labour seats voted leave very heavily.
I have no doubt that Priti Patel and the rest of the Tory government are fully aware that much of the bill represents pointless and costly VOTE-WINNING nonsense
FTFY
Ernie is true about the total disconnect. A process started with Blair and continued ever since. Relying on focus groups leaves the party following not leading. Its not Starmers fault - he inherited the party like this
Yer fine tho Binners - Cooper will support it and win loads of votes by doing so *rolleyes*
Again this is where the labour party needs leaders not weathervanes. Leaders to explain why the billis wrong and to take the public with them
And you think that Starmer should follow them into the gutter, or at the very least quietly tut from a distance in the hope that no one will notice?
Not sure that suggestion has been made anywhere. But the point is that the Christmas party is indefensible and widely unpopular, whereas sections of the public that lean to the right will support our transition into a Fascist state via the Borders bill. I don't care if it's for shooting refugees or cheating at the village tombola -if Kier can use it to skewer Johnson and get the c*** out of No 10, get stuck in, big man.
how else is it going to discover the thoughts of such a obviously wildly disparate group of people other than by asking them what they think about things?
I would expect the average Labour Party member to represent the average Labour voter. Granted I am harking back to a time before lawyers took control of the party and changed it into a middle-class protest group.
Btw are you using the Tory tactic of confusing asylum seekers with immigrants?
When it comes to all those seats (up here) where immigration fear mongering led to Corbyn losing to Johnson... Labour has to oppose the Nationality and Borders Bill (nationalism + control our borders) in a detailed way, explaining why it is counter productive, puts more people at risk, and criminalises humanitarian help for those most in need. It needs to avoid the charge of "it's all Labour go on about, they're more interested in helping people in Calais than our own"... its a very difficult line to walk.
don’t care if it’s for shooting refugees or cheating at the village tombola
Really?? Well at least you are honest about it.
I would expect the average Labour Party member to represent the average Labour voter.
If nothing else over the past half decade or so through the Brexit vote and Corbyn leadership I would have thought that it would be obvious to anyone who pays even scant regard to politics is that there is no such thing anymore as an "average Labour voter" (if there ever was ) The party is split by both age, leave remain, working class and metropolitan voters all of who are looking to the Labour party to represent different things to them. Control of Immigration is very popular amongst a section of people who vote Labour.
Ernie is true about the total disconnect. A process started with Blair and continued ever since. Relying on focus groups leaves the party following not leading. Its not Starmers fault – he inherited the party like this
Although prior to ‘97 the last Labour election victory was ‘74 and that took a couple of goes.
So if they were “leading” prior to Blair they were doing a crap job of it.
And you think that Starmer should follow them into the gutter, or at the very least quietly tut from a distance in the hope that no one will notice?
this is exactly what a load of labour supporters on here have been saying. Most noticeably when I called Burnham and others out for anti immigrant rhetoric. Apparantly its the right thing to do to pander to racists in the hope of votes.
We will see Cooper doing the same thing overt this bill. I'll eat my hat if she does not.
Really?? Well at least you are honest about it.
If it gets Johnson out, no, I don't care what it is.
Do you?
I would have thought that it would be obvious to anyone who pays even scant regard to politics is that there is no such thing anymore as an “average Labour voter” (if there ever was )
Oh I'm sorry Nick, I wasn't aware that you are the only one allowed to make sweeping generalisations and talk of "Labour supporters in Red Wall seats are generally....'
But well done for using the word "anymore", which is of course precisely my point.
Apparantly its the right thing to do to pander to racists in the hope of votes.
Control of Immigration is a popular policy amongst some folks who vote Labour.
Do you?
LOL! Of course I care!
I thought that was obvious.
Deleted as I can't see this going anywhere useful.
LOL! Of course I care!
I thought that was obvious.
You'd rather Johnson stayed in if the only lever to get him out is of comparatively little consequence?
Control of immigration is popular with me
As it is amongst other Labour supporters
And so you continue to use the right-wing Daily Mail columnist tactic of confusing desperate asylum seekers with immigrants.
this is just horse shit to get me to rise to your trolling.
this is just horse shit to get me to rise to your trolling.
It is straightforward fact, you are deliberately bunching asylum seekers and immigratants together, as Daily Mail opinion writers do.
Even David Davis a brexiteer and senior Tory doesn't do that.
A lot of people were adamant that focusing on wallpaper etc was not the way to bring Johnson down, I'm hopeful now that it may be enough
And some of those commentators looking a bit daft now...
Starmer still has a way to go tho to get real solid support
Control of Immigration is a popular policy amongst some folks who vote Labour.
In england! this is a failure of leadership by labour. No alternative discourse has been presented. When both labour and tories use anti immigrant rhetoric then of course the public mood follows.
this is a classic example of weathervane politicians. Look to Scotland and you see anti immigrant rhetoric from any of the major parties does not happen. Sturgeon has LED the country away from that and the other parties follow suit. Even the scots tories do not use anti immigrant rhetoric
Labour following tories on issues like this will never gain them anything as they become " tory lite" Not right wing enough to attract the right wing voters, too right wing to attract and enthuse voters from the left
It is straightforward fact, you are deliberately bunching asylum seekers and immigratants together, as Daily Mail opinion writers do.
Feel free to make assumption about how I think if it makes you feel better.
Controlled immigration has been Labour Party policy for as long as I can remember. I don't think there has ever been a time when the Labour Party didn't think that controls were necessary.
That is a very different issue to refugees and asylum seekers, despite Nick's determination to bunch it all together.
The Nationality and Borders Bill, which is what we are talking about, isn't about immigration, it is about asylum seekers and how they should be treated.
No alternative discourse has been presented. When both labour and tories use anti immigrant rhetoric then of course the public mood follows.
From 1970 onwards there has been a consistent majority opinion for reducing immigration among
the British public. Since the turn of the millennium, concern about migrants and refugees has been
a dominant feature of British politics. Dempster and Hargreave 2017)
Feel free to make assumption about how I think if it makes you feel better.
I am not making any assumptions at all about how you think. I was pointing out what you wrote.
You started to banging on about immigration and whether it was popular, when what was being discussed was the treatment of asylum seekers.
Yes Nickc - although replace England for the UK
You must ask why is this? the answer being decades of anti immigrant propaganda in the press and a labour party to scared to buck this. When the poplulation have been fed anti immigrant rhetoric for decades with no one challenging it it becomes the accepted truth even when it is not
There is a meme going round in Scotland now " independence now for a fair and humane asylum and immigration policy. "
papers like the express and mail do not lead on immigration in their scots versions even when doing in england. why? Because they know it will not resonate here. why does it not resonate here? leadership! The scots median position on immigration has diverged greatly from england over the last decade or two
all you are doing is making my point - the reason for the enmity towards immigrants is a failure of leadership
And getting back to what issues garner the most vote, because apparently that is all that matters, hostility towards asylum seekers is nowhere the majority that some people who rely on internal polls seem to think it is :
But perhaps YouGov's methodology isn't as good as Labour's Internal polls?
“We” have made it too difficult to migrate to (and migrate from) the UK… “we” have made it harder to work and live across borders… and “we” have also shut down routes to come to the UK to claim asylum. We can do better than that on all counts without having “uncontrolled immigration” as if it’s the 19th Century. There are people (voters) that have made it very clear that they want fewer migrants and fewer asylum seekers in the UK… you’ve been sticking up for them for years now Earnie. Labour needs to help those people, and some how be “on their side”, while also fixing our immigration and asylum systems once in government (yes I know) and opposing the government’s plans to make them even worse while stuck in opposition… it’s all a very big ask. The current version of the Conservative party are dying to make the next election all about “Nationality and Boarders”… it’s carried them all the way to the top, and is their best shot at staying there.
And getting back to what issues garner the most vote, because apparently that is all that matters...
Grow up.
pondo Full Member
Grow up
A strange comment from someone who claims that they are not bothered whether the Tories are critised for "shooting refugees or cheating at the village tombola".
Have a word with yourself.
They should be criticised for both... but if it's the cheating at the tombola that needs exposing to move voters away from them and unseat them... so be it. Stop playing your games Ernie, you know exactly what they said and meant.