Forum menu
Pre bankers budget but the truss bounce appears to have been rather flat
theres a snap post budget Savamta poll in (and for) the Daily Fail predicting a 56 seat labour majority from a 12 point lead. :/
I'd take that but a big win for labour would mean no PR which is no good.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1574281362755899392?t=Sw6rxtrRcU8MXeUZJUzGTg&s=19
Yes, you idiots it's called state ownership backed by an already sovereign currency issuing government.
These people are off their heads.
"But I don't want to admit we already spend and issue out own currency - we must need a 'fund'."
FFs
I like anything that spends on the diminished parts of society but please stop pretending that we need some made up economic lies to make it work
'Grow the economy' means no redistribution but if you work harder to enrich your bosses you might get a few extra crumbs. It's Labour's re-wording of trickle down.
A wealth fund actually sounds like a pretty good idea on the face of it, providing the investment for the infrastructure projects by keeping shares in the companies to funnel back profits for future investments.
However I think it creates two big problems.
1, while governments create the investment and infrastructure, down the line other governments can sell off the investments to create short term gains.
2. Governments injecting investment of public money inflates an already inflated asset market, meaning future generations pay more for a smaller percentage of the pie (see also the impact of government support for first time buyers and the impact on house prices).
They are saddled with the same thinking but communicate it differently than the Tories and perhaps aren't as reckless but it's still the same framework they are operating to.
Labour can do very little different to the Tories in this sort of economic situation - I mean the BoE would still raise rates wouldn't they!
All sounds good to me (the Labour headline that is, not your moaning).
Another policy. Labour seem to mean business in this conference. It's long overdue. How long before they announce free broadband?
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1574333123537559552?s=20&t=CAFM3-mPrUj7wOQXMOuOvQ
Well now Brexit has 'been done' they at least don't have that massive obstacle to fall over so have achance with some well thought out polcies.
Yup... all the performance patrotism (sadly needed, you only have to read any polling done on why Labour lost so badly in 2019) isn't the only story that'll come out of this conference, thank goodness... it'll all still be too cautious for many... and it won't be the full story of how the next election will be fought... but it will be the start of the drawing of an obvious and understandable dividing line in the minds of the voters.
Next up... a Real Living Wage.
Yes, none of this is new. Yes, we need it. The big challenge for Labour is to take enough voters along with them up to election day.
I’d take that but a big win for labour would mean no PR which is no good.
It wouldn't be anything like that by the time the media has got to work. And a system which 'may' only deliver a narrow majority after 12 years of some of the poorest administrations in living memory needs to go.
Labour needs to make sure, by pacting with the LibDems, and pledge to introduce full PR in the first term.
Labour needs to make sure, by pacting with the LibDems, and pledge to introduce full PR in the first term.
I don't see this happening. Even though I'd like it to. Not on the run up to the next election anyway. What happens once/if the Conservatives are out of office, and need to be kept out of office... that's a whole other future battle. Conservative majority government based on minority public support is dragging the UK down, and splitting it apart.
NHS staffing, the nettle that needs grasping…
https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/1574363237604364288?s=21
Creating jobs that are needed, rather than giving money to the rich and pretending that creates jobs, who'd have thunked it. They really need to push the message that this is how the economy expends, and not by allowing the already wealthy to horde even more money.
Sounding good so far.
Yeah, I can't say I'm finding it inspirational but it feels pretty solid, well thought out and probably a good mix of public-pleasing and actually useful.
But, at the same time finding it hard to square with the party's messaging of, oh, a couple of days ago, or the month or the year before. That might sound like a lefty blaming starmer for everything, I guess, but I'd have been pretty happy if this had been his launch, rather than 2 and a half years in.
I mean, for instance, "we'll nationalise the railways". Excellent! Of course we ****ing should, even most tory voters want that and the tories have literally already done a bunch of it. Except that was a 2020 promise that he already backtracked on once and it was just as open a goal last time. Reannouncing the same abandoned policies, even when they're good one, makes you less trustworthy- I love the policy but do I have faith in it still being policy next year? No.
But, it does feel generally better
I like all these ideas but Labour are claiming funding them with taxes reset.
I means seriously shut up about that.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1574379410857332739?t=-cTUtwolc9OJFrlAPI0ECg&s=19
Yep. I mean, we have Kwarteng literally giving money to rich people and openly paying for it with borrowing, and it going down like a lead balloon. Even against that backdrop, Labour are still on the balancing the books myth. At this point I think there could be no opposition at all and they'd still be too traumatised to move from that position. It is not good. And it's persistent- if anyone ever does find the nerve to actually tell the truth on this, every time a previous leader's not done it will count against them, so they're not just sustaining the myth even though it suits the tories way more than it suits them, they're making it stronger.
People think that Labour promise things that we can’t afford as a country. They are wrong, but you can’t just tell them that, you have to reassure them to win them over. Every single policy Labour announce will be paired with a preemptive answer to the question “how will you pay for it”. Get used to it. It will be the pattern right up to the next election. “Uncosted plans” will not be part of the Labour manifesto. Full stop. The same rules do not apply to the Tories, but it’s always been that way.
Corbyn's manifesto was fully costed with the backing of dozens of international economists and he still got destroyed with the support, sadly, of some on here. He's no longer relevant but there are lessons to be learnt whilst people stew in their newly acquired poverty.
Some of us voted for Labour at both his general elections, because we could see where Tory MPs would take us. I did anyway. Not sure who “here” helped defeat/destroy him though… it’s just some mountain bikers throwing thoughts and observations between each other. I’m hoping most of those moaning about Starmer on here will still vote Labour, if they are in a Tory/Labour marginal seat. Grumping on the internet that he isn’t good enough is fine, and perfectly understandable. Not voting against these Tories at the next general election is a whole other matter.
Who said 'helped defeat/destroy'? It reads 'support', do you not remember 'who could vote for Corbyn?', 'magic grandad, couldn't find his arse, anti-semite' etc. Blimey, it wasn't that long ago.
Truss has gifted Starmer a 17pt lead , extra remarkable as there is no ukip to slice up the Tory vote & 20% gone to lib Dems/ GRN/SNP !
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1574498468172906512?t=I9G22Ap7Tg15ZIep-OIsrw&s=19
Blimey, it wasn’t that long ago.
Sorry Bill, yeah, many of us pointed out Corbyn’s weaknesses, but still voted for Labour parliamentary candidates with him as leader. I’m hoping those pointing out Starmer’s weaknesses (and he has plenty) will still vote for Labour candidates with him as leader. If that’s what works in their seat. We’ll see.
Truss has gifted Starmer a 17pt lead , extra remarkable as there is no ukip to slice up the Tory vote & 20% gone to lib Dems/ GRN/SNP !
And we haven’t had this winter yet. The worst is yet to come.
Also, there is much more that LibDems can take from the Tories in some areas of the country. The cancelling of their conference was a stroke of luck for Truss… it’s a rare period of air time for them normally. I think they’ll be double figures if they can remind voters they exist. Tories at 25% seems possible.
I mean, for instance, “we’ll nationalise the railways”. Excellent! Of course we ****ing should, even most tory voters want that and the tories have literally already done a bunch of it. Except that was a 2020 promise that he already backtracked on once and it was just as open a goal last time. Reannouncing the same abandoned policies, even when they’re good one, makes you less trustworthy- I love the policy but do I have faith in it still being policy next year? No.
Nearly 30 years ago in 1995 Tony Blair was talking about renationalisation of the railways, when it suited his agenda to do so:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-draws-up-plan-to-renationalise-railways-1568038.html
He soon dropped the idea when it no longer suited his agenda.
But why is Starmer only considering renationalising something which is consistently losing money and will always do so?
Last year when the government pumped £16.9 billion into the railways might have been exceptional but pre-pandemic the railways were receiving £5 billion a year in government subsidies.
Of course it is right to nationalise an industry in which the profits go to private companies and the losses to the government, but why not also talk about renationalising vital industries which usually are expected to make vast profits?
To only have under common ownership industries which provide a vital service but have to rely on government subsidies perpetuates this false narrative that nationalisation equates with failed business models that only survive due to handouts from tax payers.
And why can't the profits from the utilities, for example, be used to help pay for health care, or education, or indeed subsidise the railways?
Public support for the renationalisation of the utilities is there, even among Tory voters, Starmer needs to be less timid and less worried about what the Daily Mail might say.
Edit: It's worth pointing out that a quarter of the railway journeys are currently provided by the public sector, and nearly half by foreign government owned companies.
kelvin
Full MemberPeople think that Labour promise things that we can’t afford as a country. They are wrong, but you can’t just tell them that, you have to reassure them to win them over. Every single policy Labour announce will be paired with a preemptive answer to the question “how will you pay for it”.
Of course. It's just, it doesn't have to be bullshit. It doesn't have to play pretty much entirely by the tory party's rules. Least of all when the tory party isn't.
I was disappointed by the apparent lack of audience participation.
Probably lots of quiet republicans. We have to do that quite often. Been doing it since school.
Also… microphones are a thing.
Did they sing the National Anthem and the Red Flag ? Seems a tad contradictory.
Perhaps a surreal mash up of the two could have been the 'Things Can Only Get Better' anthem for a new generation.
People think that Labour promise things that we can’t afford as a country. They are wrong, but you can’t just tell them that, you have to reassure them to win them over. Every single policy Labour announce will be paired with a preemptive answer to the question “how will you pay for it”.
Of course. It’s just, it doesn’t have to be bullshit. It doesn’t have to play pretty much entirely by the tory party’s rules. Least of all when the tory party isn’t
also how honest are the tories about their actual objectives (make the rich richer, keep folks in their place, widen social divisions etc etc)? We now have the second highest income inequality of any OECD country in Europe, behind Bulgaria (OECD data. Income inequality. https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm ). The let's call it budget should take us to the top spot no problem.
Did they sing the National Anthem and the Red Flag ?
The Red Flag is usually sung at the end of Conference.
It remains to be seen whether this year they employ the services of a professional singer to camouflage the lack of audience participation when the Red Flag is sung.
Usually it is sung with great passion. And for many much emphasis is made on the words "Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, We'll keep the red flag flying here"
Usually it is sung with great passion.
I think they've expelled everyone who might sing it with passion.
Shit he just announced the nationalisation of energy! I’m sold.
And… it’s to be a new nationally owned body focussed on renewables, rather than giving money to those still holding fossil fuel shares by buying out “legacy” producers. Sounds like a sound approach to me.
And… it’s to be a new nationally owned body focussed on renewables, rather than giving money to those still holding fossil fuel shares by buying out “legacy” producers. Sounds like a sound approach to me
Definitely sounds good
That it's called Great British Energy will upset the Tories, who will now have to attack it
Truss has gifted Starmer a 17pt lead , extra remarkable as there is no ukip to slice up the Tory vote & 20% gone to lib Dems/ GRN/SNP !
And we haven’t had this winter yet. The worst is yet to come.
Yeah it's hard to see how Tories can regain ground given what's in store.
it’s to be a new nationally owned body focussed on renewables, rather than giving money to those still holding fossil fuel shares
Yup. He's essentially bringing about the decline of the fossil fuel energy providers in Britain. That's quite a revolutionary policy. Combined with the announcement on rail and other stuff I have to say there's very little to dislike here assuming he doesn't change his mind.
Missed the speech - work and all that - but, based on what I've read, it's the most positive and encouraging speech by a labour leader for 20 years.
Strong set of policy commitments; I like!
I have Covid today so got to sit down and watch the speech in full.
It was good with some practical changes that people will be able to buy in to. You just wish it could start tomorrow 🙁
Does this answer the "Where are the new ideas/visionary leadership/etc" questions?
Maybe they've just been biding their time . . . . . . ?
With this and PR on the horizon it could just work.
It could be a long time to the next election mind. . . . .
Combined with the announcement on rail and other stuff I have to say there’s very little to dislike here assuming he doesn’t change his mind.
That's my worry: I liked his leadership manifesto, but he then spent the next year disowning it. Let's hope he sticks to his guns this time.
Well, optimistically, when he became leader he presumably had lots of horse trading to do. But now it's been a few years it should be a lot more organised and these things should stick. You'd hope...
Well, optimistically, when he became leader he presumably had lots of horse trading to do.
It felt like a cynical exercise in buying the left's votes, after which he set about purging them from party. I can only hope that you're right about today's commitments sticking.
Surprised there's not more content by the usual crew on this thread?
Liking the direction of travel so far.
Even Tory voters like it
https://twitter.com/Cmmonwealth/status/1574755032372756483?t=6PO_n9D4WlAsaYCpuRYI9g&s=19
Truss has managed to turn conservatives onto green energy & public ownership 😂😂😂
Quiet in here tonight…
They are just grumpy that sks has got some good policies.
Good interview with Angela Rayner on the news agents podcast recently too
They are just grumpy that sks has got some good policies.
Eh?
With this and PR on the horizon it could just work.
Proportional representation? Starmer has ruled it out although Conference voted in favour
Edit: PR would need Labour in government to be implemented. If you meant PR as a vote winner that is far from certain, it was rejected 2 to 1 in a referendum. Although the unpopularity of the LibDems at the time probably played a significant part.
Good interview with Angela Rayner on the news agents podcast recently too
Angela Rayner is good as she can speak on her feet without anything prepared. I have seen her speak publicly twice now and was pretty impressed both times. She is fluid and knows how to crank up emotions in her audience. Obviously I have only seen her speak in fairly friendly environments.
Timed his run nicely. Looks a sure fire thing. It is reminiscent of the last time Labour got in.
Angela Rayner as no1
And keir as deputy HS
Labour would be running the show by now.
He did ok today.
I think the 1/2 of Starmer and Rayner works pretty well now. Like it or not a lot of people are turned right off by Rayner- I really like her but Starmer's maleness, boringness and shapeshifting has the advantage of being inoffensive, while she can be the firebrand and attract people who want that.
They are just grumpy that sks has got some good policies.
By any measure I’ve been one of the most vocal critics of Starmer, so this is a bit of an odd comment given my earlier post. I still don’t like the guy, but all I really care about is the policies and getting rid of the tories. For the first time in his leadership he looks like he offers both of those, and he’s doing what he said he would do in his leadership campaign which is uniting the party behind some radical transformational policies. Its just a pity he didn’t do it from the start.
If you meant PR as a vote winner that is far from certain, it was rejected 2 to 1 in a referendum.
When was that?
Or are you talking about AV which was a far weaker proposition that nobody wanted?
. If you meant PR as a vote winner that is far from certain, it was rejected 2 to 1 in a referendum.
Not only was it not a proper pr system but the majority of politicians in luding labour campaigned aganst it.
We see different pr systems working in Scotland.
Its just a pity he didn’t do it from the start.
Maybe wishful, but perhaps somewhere between Art of War and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope; bide your time and wait until they've reached the truly indefensible, THEN counter.
Its just a pity he didn’t do it from the start.
Maybe just playing the long game, clearing out the saboteurs in the PLP so this moment didn't get sabotaged. Would it have made any difference if he had done this earlier, theres been no election. His timing has been bang on, really highlighted the idiocy of the Kwartang / Truss leadership, hes helped to discredit Truss from day one (although she and Kwartang have done most of the work). If he can now keep pressure on he should be able to ride it to the next election and maybe cause another leadership battle in the Tories in the meantime.
As for radical policies, I don't think much of what he announced was very radical, just sensible and in sharp contrast with the Tory madness. I really dislike government owned businesses and even I'm on-board with a state owned energy generator based on green technology.
The country is a mess and being hammered by outside forces, now is not the time for radical experimental policies when it won't get Labour elected.
Quiet in here tonight
Petty.
Only because we might be busy and not sat on a 'puter all day. The only reason for me currently.
What the hell - you lot disappear in the difficult times and pop up when you hear an announcement that suits.
Sounds on the surface of it all good ideas but I need to be convinced any of this will be implemented. Self imposed budgetary constraints will make things very tricky.
These things can't be enacted unless Rachel Reeves speak the correct financial language. Although I did hear Starmer talk about 'borrowing' to invest which is rubbish from a technical explanation but it's better to admit that now.
You know all the chaos of the last few days could have been circumvented if the Tories has just said something about Q/E - irrespective of pointless tax cuts. The dollar being generally strong because they got to the internet rates quickly. The dollar will have its day though and you watch the Tories seize that.
It's funny I remember lots of folk dissing conference when it suited them but hey ho.
Some of us are honest enough to welcome stuff.
Next few days expect stupid comments about the IMF coming to rescue of country that has the power to issue it's own currency. And possible Tory u-turns.
This war is far from over. Although I've always said the Tories would eventually fatigue themselves into oblivion.
What's Truly sad is we could have had all of this and more in 2017 but Corbyn etc. Where just simply lagging. And the playing field is easy for Starmer.
If someone can direct me to the referendum we had on Proportional Representation that’d be great…
I do remember the utter horse 💩 referendum in AV mind you.
Also: Starmer is simply doing (in a way) what we've been asking for on here for a while and that is some big solutions.
I don't see how in principle that's a centrist 'win'. That's just adhering to the idea you need left solutions for right-wing problems.
I presume some of the Centrists here are at odds with nationalised element of GB Energy concept? Because you were.
(Lol GB energy is a terrible name being previously one of the early companies to go bust! )
Starmer very good on Radio4 this morning. They're trying very hard to make the headline story about Rupa Huq... but he set out Labour's stall very well despite that.
I don’t see how in principle that’s a centrist ‘win’.
Who said it was?
Rone... why join in the over simplification of this debate as "dastardly centrists against the left"? Labour are offering policies that are in stark relief to the those of the Tories, and are carefully choosing, framing, and timing left wing (and green) policy announcements in a way that people who haven't been voting Labour (or Green) can get behind.
Maybe just playing the long game, clearing out the saboteurs in the PLP so this moment didn’t get sabotaged.
The reason for "saboteurs" as you call them was because he cynically bought the votes of the left (including mine) then set about removing them from the party. He brought that entirely on himself.
Anyway, lots to like in the speech yesterday but we'll have to wait and see if he actually means it this time.
Enjoy the small victories just now, no point having the them and us within the labour support, it's going to be a long two years until the next election, there'll be a lot of movement, both in personnel and in policies.
Anyway, lots to like in the speech yesterday.....
I didn't see the whole of the hour long speech but what I saw or know of it I found encouraging. What concerns me most isn't what Starmer said, which seems fine, but what he didn't say.
Among what he didn't mention, as I understand it, was any reference to high profile current industrial action and growing calls for industrial action across many sectors.
This will not have been an oversight, Starmer is the leader of a political party founded by trade unions and still bankrolled by trade unions.
Starmer has a responsibility to represent organised working people, especially ones currently engaged in dispute with Tory government imposed policies. Plenty of senior Labour politicians recognise this, in contrast Starmer wants to distance himself from such responsibility.
I no doubt that the announcements of rail nationalisation and Great British Energy is the result of pressure from trade unions, and it very much has to be welcomed imo, but there is still a long way to go.
On another issue I found the reaction to Starmer's speech frankly disturbing - the constant standing ovations throughout it and the stage managed sight of his adoring wife rushing to kiss him, followed by a walkabout shaking hands and waving, looked exactly like an American political rally and very little like a Labour Party Conference.
I'm not blaming Starmer personally for that but it's worrying just how much the Labour Party has changed in that respect.
Starmer was excellent on Today(in fact the whole last half of the program was good for a change with some properly interesting speakers on instead of just wheeling out John Redwood and some idiot from the Spectator yet again for some headbanging).
He didn't get sidetracked but at the same time answered the questions put, even the stupid insistance he come up with a figure for the 1p cut in IT. The points he got across were well made and he dealt with the Huq issue in short order by calling it out for what it was straight away.
Even managed to end on a funny, backed up with some passion.
Best speech I've heard him make yesterday and best interview I've heard from him today - perhaps things are looking up but as above, before we get anywhere near a Labour Govt we have to get through the current shitestorm. Its going to be a long and painful 2 years.
On another issue I found the reaction to Starmer’s speech frankly disturbing – the constant standing ovations throughout it and the stage managed sight of his adoring wife rushing to kiss him, followed by a walkabout shaking hands and waving, looked exactly like an American political rally and very little like a Labour Party Conference.
I don't care for it either but it's nothing new.
Was thinking about Labour and Starmer's current situation last night whilst suffering from insomnia again.
What they are really selling now is hope, pure and simple and there is a real appetite for that at the moment.
That appetite is likely to be ravenous 2 years from now.
https://www.gg2.net/keir-starmer-calls-rupa-huqs-comments-on-kwarteng-clearly-racist/
She will be dealt with and I’ll be absolutely clear – it was racist,”
So okay Kwarteng isn't superficially black, he is a proper black geezer, even if his upbringing, education, and political career choices, aren't very typical of a black Brit, but how can Rupa Huqs comment be described as "racist"?
Was Rupa Huq, who appears to be more than superficially brown, really showing prejudice towards Kwarteng because of his colour?
What it was undoubtedly, imo, was rude, and she has indeed apologised for the remark, but it was made in a fringe meeting in which she was presumably criticising the Chancellor, she wouldn't have known that a supporter of a right-wing Tory website was recording her comments.
For Starmer to jump in and publicly accuse the black woman of racism seems like a gross overreaction to me. Perhaps he should tackle real racism inside the Labour Party, instead of using the racist card whenever it suits him.
https://www.voice-online.co.uk/news/uk-news/2022/07/19/widespread-racism-in-labour-new-report/
Damning report finds Labour were "operating a hierarchy of racism". Black MPs abused in leaked messages tell The Voice the party must change.
Starmer was excellent on Today
He was pretty good on 5live this morning apart from when asked a bland question about football. Should Saka be starting upfront? Bland platitudes, and then asked who should be playing up front with him? The awkwardness as he couldn't name another England forward or just say he wasn't interested in football was impressive. It's 2:00:45 into this mornings breakfast show.
Ok wrnie ill take you up on it.
One definition of racism is " negative stereotyping based on race.
The stereotype here is that all black men speak with an accent. It was used in a pejorative way to denigrate him.
And yes black on bkack and brown on black racism exists.
Do i think Huq is racist? I doubt it. Was the remark racist? Obviously
Ask a black person you know if they think it racist.
One definition of racism is ” negative stereotyping based on race.
Huq's remark was clearly stereotyping, she was stereotyping the sort of person who goes to Eton, but I don't see how it was negative against black people, which it would have to be for it to be racist.
What the remark was was quite rude and impolite, it questioned his blackness. If I met Kwarteng and said to him "call yourself a black man?" he would quite rightly consider me to be rude. But it couldn't be classed as racist, just stupid.
Huq has apologised, the remark wasn't for public consumption, just like rude remarks about Truss and Kwarteng on stw aren't, I think accusing her of a racist remark and suspending her from the party is an over reaction which will greatly please Tory politicians.
And not least because the Labour Party appears to have serious issues of racism which Starmer has, allegedly by black members, failed to address. I'm not impressed with him going around publicly criticising a black female Labour MP to please the Tories and right-wing tabloids.
The sterotype is that all black men speak with obviously black accents.
She then used that sterotype to call him nott a real black man. Thats negative sterotyping based on race
I know other black men who speak with received pronunciation who are not posh boys
If she wanted to sterotype him based on eton there are othet characteristics she could have used
Ask a black friend
i didn't realise she had been suspended. Thats a gross over reaction and you are perfectly correct that there are bigger racism issues in labour
How much is the over reaction based on Huqs race?
Thats a gross over reaction
Maybe not, it's certainly a good demonstration that you don't get a free pass to abuse people of a similar colour in the Labour Party.
I’m not impressed with him
Really? You don't give that impression.
Maybe an over reaction but not at all unreasonable given the ammo the right wing press would have used if he hadn't. If the last few days have taught us anything about Starmer it's that he is determined to be seen as the sensible choice for the majority. Dealing quickly with Huq is route one.
Is apartheid racist?
chestrockwell - Full Member
I’m not impressed with himReally? You don’t give that impression.
The full sentence rather than just the first 5 words of it would have given my comment context chestrockweii. But assuming that you weren't trying to save on space I have no doubt that denying my comment of context was your intention.
The right-wing press will use the incident to attack the Labour Party if they wish, suspension from the Labour Party won't rob them of "ammo" imo, they will in fact relish it as it will expand the story and crank up more hostile reporting.
It was a daft comment but imo no more racist than people on this forum expressing disappointment in Priti Patel when she was Home Secretary for pursuing racist asylum rules despite herself being brown.
You could say that Priti Patel was "superficially" an Asian woman but in every other respect just another Tory like all other white racist Tories.
Would you class that as a racist comment because I assuming that Asian women should behave in a certain manner over certain issues? Is the comment racist because it stereotypes Asian women?
Your comment does not need context to anyone who has taken even a fleeting interest in this thread Ernie. You may well make some valid points but your seething resentment for Starmer clouds everything you say in this chat.
Yes of course that comment needed context. There is no "seething resentment" of Starmer on my part. I have repeatedly said that I do not believe that he is the problem which is why I consider that replacing him would be pointless.
I am more than happy to give Starmer credit when it is warranted. I happen to think that the 10 pledges that he made prior to becoming leader were absolutely excellent, and no one has done more to publicise them on here than me.
I expect the Labour Party to offer a credible and significant alternative to the Tories, when imo they do so they can expect my full and active support. But I will criticise them when they attempt to ape the Tories - I am strongly opposed to the Tories and their ruling class agenda - why would I expect Labour to emulate them?
Labour's recent committment to support common ownership in rail and energy is great but it is exactly what I expect from a left-wing social democratic party set up by working people for working people, it's nothing to get over excited and start writing home about - it's just bog standard alternative to free market neo-liberalism. I expect a lot more.
Starmer deserves credit when he gets it right but he also deserves criticism when he screws up or is responsible for divisive policies and expulsions etc.
Ironically imo it is your seething resentment for my left-wing views that results in you selectively picking and taking my comments out of context chestrockweii.
Righto mate, I'm off to bed.