Forum menu
that’s almost like justifying a war by saying Ukraine want to be part of Russia
Get a grip. You might not agree with Starmer's position on Brexit but claiming that accepting the referendum result is almost like justifying war in Ukraine is one hell of a leap to make.
Hyperbole, much?
Why can’t starmer honour the referendum by keeping us in the single market like we were repeatedly told?
keeping us in the single market
Because we’re not in it? No one can keep us in it now, more’s the pity.
Remember all those arguments about what “access to the single market” means? Whether Norway was technically a member, or just had “access”…? Well all the arguments will be coming back. Starting with the commentary on the 2025 EU/UK TCA negotiations probably. Improving our relationship with the EU is always going to fall well short of what we gave up… the slow painful journey probably started in earnest last week… when a UK PM managed a baby step without it becoming another chance for Johnson to unseat yet another of party leaders for his own gain.
With starmer’s red lines are we now looking to the tories for a more realistic chance of alignment?
Sunak has taken the first step to the future , Starmer is stuck in the past.
The hard Tory brexit is his year zero and nothing must taint the purity of the erg’s interpretation of the result.
We need the Tories to move (a long way) towards closer ties with the rest of Europe… because we’re not going to get the long term agreements we need with the EU without some consensus across UK politics about sticking to those agreements. In answer to your pretend question… no, sticking with the Tories in government at the next election isn’t our best hope of closer alignment, far from it… Labour are the ones proposing that… but we do need the Tories to move as well, and to abandon their championing of aggressive divergence.
Are you listening Reeves?
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1632878277407698944?t=NSjw4xUnOrGrUg_MKV3csQ&s=19
I don't think any of the parties are listening and only the Green Party are pledging to actually do anything to help but even then covered by taxing the rich to "balance the books"
The Green Party are a lot closer to a labour or even socialist party than the Labour Party yet all those people who want a proper Labour Party don't seem to vote for them or is that because not many people actually want that?
Starmer may be easier to swallow for the brainwashed voters who think a party like the Tory party will help them and improve society but the way he didn't answer such a simple question completely destroys any integrity he pretends to have.
I will agree that his stance on Brexit was shite, trying to keep people like you sweet instead of respecting the referendum result, but it is hardly relevant to today.
It wasn't a referendum, it was an ill-advised Tory opinion poll. Referenda that want to enforce a serious policy change have rules and requirements to allow the changes to be made in a manner that is agreed by the losers (losers consent) as well as the winners. I can recall none of that being in the legislation. There has also been no attempt to gain losers consent due to an overweaning arrogance by those that won by 2% on a possible 72% turnout.
Failure to acknowledge losers consent is the major problem and Starmer is set on continuing this, no vote from me for the illiberal fool. (See also ID cards which he is/was a proponent of).
"This whole notion that you run government like you run a household…is a complete myth”
I heard Mariana Mazzucato make that point and emphasis the fact that governments can print money on Newsnight last night, and I thought that there would be at least one person on STW who would agree!
The Green Party are a lot closer to a labour or even socialist party than the Labour Party yet all those people who want a proper Labour Party don’t seem to vote for them or is that because not many people actually want that?
I have no problem voting Green as an alternative to the Labour Party and did precisely that at the local elections last May. I clearly wasn't the only one as for the first time ever the Greens won seats on my local council.
Obviously I don't agree the Green Party's policy on the EU (although they have a long record of being highly critical of the EU) but I am not so obsessed on the issue that it affects the way I vote in local elections which are not remotely connected to the topic of EU membership.
For me the Green Party has two redeeming qualities which the three major political parties all lack. Firstly they are a social democratic party and secondly, for very obvious reasons, they don't attract self-serving careerists, what is there not to like?
Until a new credible trade union backed socialist party is formed I can't realistically see me supporting any other party.
It wasn’t a referendum, it was an ill-advised Tory opinion poll
It was completely backed by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, in fact the LibDems were the first to call for a straight in/out referendum. Awkward.
If Labour went into the next election refusing to address changes to taxation with a flippant “we’ll just print more money”… well… you all know what would happen…
If Labour went into the next election refusing to address changes to taxation with a flippant “we’ll just print more money”… well… you all know what would happen…
Lol, you joining the ranks of the right that simply call it just printing money? I hear it a lot. Trouble is it doesn't represent the reality of a fiat system.
They could however say - 'funding for investment starts (as always) with massive government spending which is not reliant on the private sector for the growth we need. '
(Instead of claiming growth will happen on a balanced budgets. A lie.)
And that would be the truth and we'd both be happy eh Kelvin?
You are doing your very best to make excuses for areas where there are no excuses.
https://twitter.com/MikeGapes/status/1632985455514865665?t=fbNECbBcH-MVUkyrQ40E8Q&s=19
Oh **** off.
Tinge UK are back around the party table.
Sigh.
you doing the ranks of the right
No, using the terminology used in the posts above that I was responding to. In quotes for a reason.
funding for investment starts (as always) with massive government spending
They are saying that. Billions of Green energy investment being the most obvious example.
No, using the terminology used in the posts above that I was responding to.
Well in fiat systems they don't print money at all to make government spending happen.
But I take your point and I like to push back because printing money has been weaponised by some as a misconceived plan that Zimbabwe did.
Fair enough. Apologies for context.
funding for investment starts (as always) with massive government spending
They're not - the line is we will borrow only to invest.
printing money has been weaponised
It's a bullshit term. Happy to agree with that.
we will borrow only to invest
Massive government investment. Not paid for up front by taxation. They're singing to your tune, but you don't like the rhyming couplets they've chosen for the lyrics.
Update: Rachel Reeves has today admitted that Starmer’s discussions with Gray took place “over several months”. He also met with her son.
Which means that legal eagle Sir K; having called for more honesty, accountability and openness in politics and endlessly criticising everyone else was doing the opposite when he was interviewed yesterday.
It also means that he reportedly facilitated a senior civil servant breaching the CS Code - something that as a lawyer he would have understood all too well.
And for Gray herself - it’s been reported that she resigned with immediate effect last Thursday in order to avoid being sacked for a clear breach of the Civil Service code - having personally adjudicated on similar transgressions.
it’s been reported that she resigned with immediate effect last Thursday in order to avoid being sacked for a clear breach of the Civil Service code
Now that would be news… where is it being reported?
Massive government investment. Not paid for up front by taxation. They’re singing to your tune, but you don’t like the rhyming couplets they’ve chosen for the lyrics.
It's never ever paid up front for by taxation.
But this is what RR has in her tweet.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1625926670765916165?t=UBAyG_7lm8A_1b5FCjjxSg&s=19
See the adherence to tax?
Labour's growth plan is built on the contradictory nature of saving tax payer money (because the Tories squander it) to spend more on investment. It's total rubbish.
Economically you have to deficit spend (in the right areas) or the private sector can't have growth.
And where is the massive government investment - let's check it over? Can you show me the plan for growth?
Honestly - Kelvin where is the counter evidence?
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1633198295278317568?t=TtoIPhnTvcMtb3e05WlxTw&s=19
"I'm an idiot because I don't understand if you don't pay enough to staff to retain them they will leave - you can train all the staff in the world but you will still need to pay them or they will leave."
Also oafish Mike Gapes - stood against Labour with funny tinge party - IDG/Change, (defeated by Sam Tarry 2019)
Tinge bugger off to get well paid jobs in the private sector taking their traditional Labour values with them.
Fast forward to now - Gapes comes back in to "natural Labour values" - apparently. Objected to Brexit etc, and voted against every soft version offered.
Gapes back in Labour - no mention of Brexit now, no hope of joining the S/M. Starmer Delighted apparently.
Absolute set of lying ****s.
https://twitter.com/SolHughesWriter/status/1633052632259391488?t=VNNjTAAZzSzgr2-Qkah74Q&s=19
Oh and Kelvin:
Commitments to big spend ...
https://twitter.com/theipaper/status/1633180138765688833?t=tifAQKcpxLPxvVm_y3dhSw&s=19
It’s hardly a surprise that NuNu Labour has reversed on Corbyn’s agenda is it ? That’s what those reverses refer to.
If they’d have reverse ferreted on commitments made at the last conference then I guess you could call them out?
It’s hardly a surprise that NuNu Labour has reversed on Corbyn’s agenda is it ? That’s what those reverses refer to.
If they’d have reverse ferreted on commitments made at the last conference then I guess you could call them out?
I know its hardly surprising but it's a hefty reminder that sir Starmer's club like to play with that truth, and when every Centrist is whining about failure of the system in five years or so. Just remember they supported it.
But the big question is what exactly are they going to fix then?
BTW these things are not exclusive to Corbyn they are desperately needed pragmatic measures to fix infrastructure, state and services.
Otherwise what is the point of Labour?
Because you sure as hell can't do it with a Neoliberal agenda.
Doesn't matter anyway I guess will be breaking my commitment to voting Labour.
Green are the only option and who I have voted for for a long time. Unfortunately not many agree as their results continue to hover around 2-3% of the vote share so they won't be getting into power anytime soon...
If labour get a huge majority will the need for party unity evaporate?
Labour for Europe pop up on my Facebook sharing all kinds of anti brexit articles. I always ask them if they fear expulsion as their views are opposite to that of their party.
As yet no one has answered.
Are they hoping , just as an expectant bride to change their man once the vows are exchanged?
There seems to be a huge gap between the people on the ground and the idiot at the top.
The shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves suggested that the railways were the only sector in line to be taken over by the state
So the only sector which Starmer is prepared to take out of the hands of profit-motivated privateers happens to be exactly the same sector which the Tories have found impossible to keep firmly in private hands?
Along with now apparent Tory shared belief that an industry entrusted with supplying the public with clean safe water, and disposing of effluence in an environmentally responsible way, should remain privately owned and in the grip of those whose goal is maximum profit, clearly proves that there is no difference at all between Starmer's Labour Party and the Tories when it comes to the issue of privatisation.
Which in itself would be quite shocking but is all the more so as to become leader Starmer had to make this very unambiguous "pledge" :
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.
In fact that ^^ so-called pledge is still clearly visible on Starmer's own website:
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
I think it is fair to say that Starmer exhibits exactly the same staggering levels of dishonesty as any senior Tory politician.
Luckily for him no one pays much attention at what he has to say so it is not really an issue. I have no idea what he will do when he is Prime Minister though, should be interesting.
And this is where his demonstrated "values" worries me about the clean energy pledge from conference, on the surface it sounded great. But in reality if it is just another built by siemens managed and run by serco excuse to siphon government spending into shareholders accounts, it doesn't benefit the nation as it should.
I think the only thing about Starmer that is worth voting for is that nothing can be as bad as the last 13 years, surely ? In the national interest, we have to remove these people from office.
As for a Labour party that will actually improve the lives of ordinary people ? I don't see Starmer having much interest in that. We had an opportunity for actual change in 2017 and too few people wanted it enough to make it happen.
I think the only thing about Starmer that is worth voting for is that nothing can be as bad as the last 13 years, surely ?
Yep, there is no way a Starmer government will be as bad as the last 13 years. Not massively better, but not as bad which is all we can hope for in this country with so many moronic and/or selfish voters.
trailmonkey
Full Member
I think the only thing about Starmer that is worth voting for is that nothing can be as bad as the last 13 years, surely ? In the national interest, we have to remove these people from office.
Pretty much my view
I think the only thing about Starmer that is worth voting for is that nothing can be as bad as the last 13 years, surely ? In the national interest, we have to remove these people from office.
Starmer: slightly less crap than the Tories.
Not much of an endorsement, is it!
The last 13 years could not have all been that bad, after all for 5 years the Liberal Democrats held almost a quarter of all the Cabinet posts.
And what a difference they must made.
About as much as Starmer probably will 💡
It was completely backed by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, in fact the LibDems were the first to call for a straight in/out referendum. Awkward.
Alternatively the other parties saw an opportunity for the ill-advised Tory opinion poll to destroy their opponents and backed it strategically. Not awkward at all, never interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake.
All this system does is lower your standards and expectation for change. And shift consensus rightwards.
Starmer is seriously wasting an opportunity. I mean who isn't hungry for better?
Are pot holes the best we can really do in decimated towns?
Alternatively the other parties saw an opportunity for the ill-advised Tory opinion poll to destroy their opponents and backed it strategically. Not awkward at all, never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake.
In an alternative reality maybe.
The Liberal Democrats were demanding an in-out referendum 9 years before the actual referendum - when the Tories weren't even in power!
https://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable-on-european-referendum-1609.html
And when the referendum bill went through the House of Commons the only people to oppose it were the SNP, no Labour or Liberal Democrat MP voted against it.
It's a bit bizarre to call it a "Tory opinion poll" when all the Labour and LibDem politicians backed it wouldn't you say?
And how have you come to the conclusion that backing the referendum was all along a cunning plan by Labour and the LibDems to "destroy their opponents"?
In what way did it destroy the Tories?
And how have you come to the conclusion that backing the referendum was all along a cunning plan by Labour and the LibDems to “destroy their opponents”?
What would you say the health status of the Tory party is right now? If it really was a cunning plan, it might well be working as regards destroying the Tory party, but the price was too high... even if some of you still see that price (Brexit... ie. the UK outside the EU and sidelined and handicapped and preoccupied) as a benefit... bizarrely.
What would you say the health status of the Tory party is right now?
This is ****ing hilarious!!! 😂
You are actually suggesting that it "might" have been a cunning plan by the Labour Party and LibDems all along to destroy the Tory Party!
The plan went like this - "when the division bell rings we all trot off and vote in favour of a referendum, the UK votes to leave the EU, the Tory Party is destroyed, job done".
The LibDems played a long game - they were demanding a referendum years before the Tories were in government!
Is there a second part to this plan? What next? How well are the LibDems doing?
Here's a question to ruin your day..
If Sunak said he was going honour the 2016 vote , join the single market and starmer still pursuing the ERG's hard brexit ,who would you vote for?
If Sunak said he was going honour the 2016 vote , join the single market
I'd ask how. On what terms. After picking myself off the floor. The Conservative Party will get there one day... when Brexit is historical and the hard work of cleaning up after it has already been done by others. Sunak will be long gone by then, probably living it up on the West Coast of the USA.
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1633871243106742272?t=AXcR_pizliuNBL7huLFeAg&s=19
Mr Bullshit. It was easy to see coming though.
...that shows what a terrible job the media has done informing the public about his deceptions.
That is because his dishonesty and lies haven't really been newsworthy. I would expect that to change during the next general election campaign though.
I have little doubt that the Tories will exploit Starmer's easily documented dishonesty and lies to their maximum benefit when voters are asked who to trust in the run-up to the next general election.
It should be fairly easy for the Tories to convince voters that they won't know precisely what they will be voting for if they back Starmer, not even Labour Party members can be totally sure.
I am fairly unbothered by it all though, it won't significantly change anything. Most people didn't really know what they were voting for in 1997 other than not Tory - Blair was very careful to make long eloquent speeches which completely lacked any substance ...... "decent society, caring communities, strong families, good hardworking people" *wait for rapturous applause*
And once installed in Downing Street Starmer's duplicity will very quickly become apparent - he won't behave any different, his personality won't change.
It will all come out in the wash.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1634104663602606082?t=Rl8YU_6eWFxM30z6Zclq8w&s=19
The Liberal gang are going to be in bits - probably not though as they ignore anything that is remotely contradictory by the current Labour shit show.
It okay to lie and be right wing to attain power your know.
Copied from Rone on the Lineker thread, as I think my comments are more appropriate here. It is a great shame that the labour leadership need someone else to show courage on a moral issue and support to be demonstrated before they follow where others lead.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1634272992204144640?s=20
Why can’t everyone in Labour just shut the **** up?
That way I could possibly vote for them.
That is mostly what they have been doing.
I have long held a special level of contempt for Yvette Cooper. I consider her to be the epitome of the dishonest self-serving careerists that have seized control of the Labour Party.
That 5 second clip expressed the views that she thought on Wednesday would serve her best. With a rapidly moving situation I doubt that 3 days later she would necessarily have the same views.
Despite Priti Patel and Suella Braverman placing the bar so low I believe that Cooper will make an appallingly bad Home Secretary.
Whenever Yvette Cooper talks about the “right thing to do” it’s hard to forget her house flipping at the tax-payers expense. Her moral compass appears to be fluid and paper thin at the best of times:
https://www.binlabour.com/2018/10/pigs-at-trough-yvette-cooper.html?m=1
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cabinet-couple-ed-balls-and-yvette-394045.amp
If labour want to change the zeitgeist, to change the narrative, then it is no good paying lip service to right wing economic and racist tropes. They have to make the argument now, when the tories are in disarray, while the tories are desperate and ****ing up everything they touch now is the time to lead the debate for something better, not be meek and wait until public opinion has already arrived where they should be leading.
I don't think that they will change their spots once power is achieved, in fact when the media attention is focussed more on them, I expect them to shrink further from stepping out from the established right wing narrative.
The goal of people like Starmer and Cooper is to secure one of the Great Offices of State, not to change society.
The Labour Party probably provides the best vehicle for them to achieve that.
There is of course no reason to assume that they will change their spots once they have achieved their goals, their arguments will continue along the lines that the alternative is incompetent Tories, and no one wants that.
However there appears to be such a sea change occuring in voters attitude's towards the Tories that it could upset the normal equilibrium.
If the Tories suffer an unprecedented defeat in the next general election, are reduced to a fraction of their current representation, and Labour secure a huge majority, something not totally beyond the realms of possiblity, public expectations will be extraordinarily high and the Tory threat will diminish in its effect.
It will be interesting to see what the political consequences of a Labour government unable to deliver the goods will be. It will provide opportunities for both the progressive left and the far right.
Here you are @ernielynch
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1634239874378203137?t=vD5KY4ls6rWm0sqnmYTz0Q&s=19
Big variation in polls currently.
@MSP 💯 Labour are not for turning.
Thanks rone. That poll is a week old, certainly not taken after the "Stop The Boats" campaign was launched, there have been another 6 polls out since then.
The 11% Labour lead is by far the smallest Labour lead that I have seen since Sunak became PM but no other pollster comes close to that, not even Opinium and Deltapoll that are generally far more generous to the Tories than other pollsters.
The Savanta poll doesn't suggest a huge change in Labour support but it is interesting because it is at odds with just about everyone else. Thanks.
Cooper from 2017 doing okay with her own 1930s parallels.
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/897483159616532480?t=rEpi2X8Fn4N90WB6ZfS7Jg&s=19
Honestly, Change UK was possible valve for flip flopping Labour MPs. Bring it back and it can suck all of them in.
Aye - bloody centralists 🤣🤣🤣
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/i-am-gary-lineker-i-am-the-centrist-christ-20230311232665
YC is awful.
Given your politics that's a compliment to Yvette Cooper as far as I'm concerned, ctk.
Are you in your usual generous mood Ed?
Another Ernie question that I don't understand.
Ooo I've got a stalker!
Ive got no idea of your politics Ed but no doubt they are beyond reproach.
I see Mark Drakeford called on SKS to bring in PR. SKS of course distanced himself from such a good idea.
One thing Cooper is right about is its absolutely a matter for the BBC and the gov' shouldn't be chipping in. We all know the tories didn't care when Sugar was telling everyone to vote tory and for Brexit. You don't get to pick and choose impartiality and if thats hill you want to die on Linker, Sugar, and Sharp all should go. If linker broke the rules so did they. But the tories have got exactly what they wanted people are talking about MOTD and not this god awful bill that "pushes the boundaries of international law"
Nah, the bill would be old news by now, no one would be talking about it. The only reason it's dragged on is because of the Lineker row. And it's not exactly providing a positive angle on the story for the government, they could have done without all this.
And Cooper is wrong if that's what she is saying. It should be a matter solely for the BBC but it obviously isn't, as the BBC have proved themselves to be unable to be impartial by attempting to silence someone who criticised the government.
The BBC under the present management clearly cannot be trusted.
The leader of the LibDems Ed Davey gets it right imo where Yvette Cooper doesn't:
“This saga has shown failure at the very top of the BBC and the dire need to urgently protect their independence.
“We need leadership at the BBC that upholds our proud British values and can withstand today’s consistently turbulent politics and Conservative bullying tactics.
“Sadly, under Richard Sharp’s leadership, this has not been the case: his appointment and position are now totally untenable and he must resign.
“The BBC should be a champion of freedom of speech and must overhaul their current rules and judgment on impartiality. They can’t continue to play by rules that are so one-sided.
“The Conservative Government has systematically attacked and undermined the independence of our BBC. That’s not in the best interests of our country and our democracy and Liberal Democrats will fiercely stand up against this.”
https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-polling-conservatives-could-lose-all-45-red-wall-seats
Great news for Labour but the one glimmer of hope for the Tories is that Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer are neck and neck in terms of popularity.
Or probably more precisely neck and neck in terms of unpopularity.
Don't know how RR & co got away with this poster.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1635626844228657152?t=dkuIMgcVaX-AhdT12Sno0Q&s=19
Talk about disingenuous.
Forecasted growth and actual growth are two different things.
There's plenty of things to hammer the Tories on without adding a disreputable poster to the mix.
For the record the UK economy has grown so far this year (slim pickings) but it's forecast is overall negative.
@ernielynch the parties may well have voted for the referendum for those reasons but nobody is omnipotent and they wouldn't be the only ones to have made a serious strategic error that day. If you cast your mind back long enough we were being promised a referendum back in the Blair days (which never happened) which was probably where a lot of the agitation came from.
Also, if you think the first coalition was anywhere as bad as what we have now then I don't know what to say. They were bad, sure, and definitely set all this in motion but this is objectively worse.
Honestly, Change UK was possible valve for flip flopping Labour MPs. Bring it back and it can suck all of them in.
@rone I forget, did they come before or after TINGE? It's all a blur at this point.
the parties may well have voted for the referendum for those reasons but nobody is omnipotent and they wouldn’t be the only ones to have made a serious strategic error that day.
The claim was made that the referendum was a "Tory opinion poll", which is obviously nonsense as it was enthusiastically supported by all three main political parties, and in fact the LibDems were the first to demand a referendum.
Whether or not it was "a serious strategic error" is irrelevant to the point.
Also, if you think the first coalition was anywhere as bad as what we have now then I don’t know what to say.
I wasn't aware that I had made a comparison. But I am aware that the brutal austerity introduced by the coalition government had a devastating affect on the UK :
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/austerity-thousands-deaths-study-researchers-b1938504.html
Austerity measures introduced by David Cameron’s coalition government after 2010 can be linked to tens of thousands of additional deaths, according to a damning new study.
I wouldn't claim that anything is necessarily better now but nor would I deny the devastating consequences of the LibDem backed, and passionately argued for, brutal austerity.
Have people really forgotten how Vince Cable and Danny Alexander were among the most vocal and enthusiastic cheerleaders of austerity? I certainly haven't and it appear that a fair chunk of the UK electorate hasn't either. A decade later support for the LibDems is still half of what it was when Charles Kennedy was leader.
I forget, did they come before or after TINGE? It’s all a blur at this point.
Lol - same for me really.
TIG, then Change UK - aka Change UK TIG - aka Independent Group for Change aka funny tinge.
Then "Well payed jobs for a change."
Wiki Chuka Umunna - "he has said that his politics and moral values come from Christianity" - "On 12 April 2021 he joined the investment bank JPMorgan Chase as Managing Director "
I'm not saying that is incompatible - but it's definitely a scoping signal for Centrism; especially when you've been in 3 different political parties - with 'fluid' values.
Luciana Berger has just recently rejoined the Labour Party after holding membership of an unknown quantity of political parties including the LibDems.
She also stood against the Labour Party at the last general election but lucky for her she is an uncompromising right-winger so she was welcomed back into the Labour Party with open arms.
I've been a member of two political parties, was LibDem, currently Labour... I know a few people who've been a member of three (some of which were are most definitely not "uncompromising right-wingers"... far from it). Why is moving between parties such a bad thing? Andrew Murray managed to be a Labour party member and advisor to a Labour party leader after a lifetime of being in Communist parties, including being leader of one of them for a while... did that elicit the same response from you? We know why Berger said she left, and it wasn't simply a matter of being on the right of the party... it was about abuse and a lack of support over it.
Yeah but @kelvin Tinge all flip flopped in the time it took your to put your socks on this morning. I think Flip flop Chukka did 3 parties within a year.
Lol Gapes and Berger both left because of Brexit according to their resignation letters (and Labour apparently not being Labour enough LMFAO) and Berger said she was shown kindness and warmth By Corbyn.
And guess what they're all back now there is no possiblity of a S/M - and the party has moved to right. Apparently Gapes says it's his Labour home. FFS.
They're right-wing hypocrites.
Full of shit.
Nah, she left the Labour Party for exactly the same reasons as Chuka Umunna did, because she is a right-winger who couldn't stomach the Labour Party offering a radical alternative to the Tories, and her case also any criticism of Israel's brutal policies.
We know what excuse she gave for leaving but plenty of Jewish Labour Party members strongly disagreed with her.
Chuka Umunna would also no doubt be welcomed with open arms, and the damage he deliberately tried to inflict on the Labour Party totally ignored. Because he is right-wing.
@kelvin I thought you weren't allowed to be a member if you were previously a member of another party?
@ernielynch I think the Tory opinion poll trope comes from the fact that Cameron thought it would settle down his party when he promised it in his election manifesto. So yes, it was a Tory led vote but as you quite rightly pointed out it was backed by other parties. You can argue the rights and wrongs about that and their motivations for doing so (it would never have made any difference if they opposed but would potentially have made life difficult later on) but at this point it's moot really.
Chuka Umunna would also no doubt be welcomed with open arms, and the damage he deliberately tried to inflict on the Labour Party totally ignored. Because he is right-wing.
Come on - he's a Christian investment banker.
Lol Chris Leslie too. "Chief executive of the Credit Services Association, the trade association of the UK debt collection and purchase industry."
Labour values.
Why is moving between parties such a bad thing?
It's more evidence of bad faith from the leadership, given that they've expelled people just for liking a tweet from the Green party.
There are inconsistencies in the rulings for sure. And I don't agree with the Labour Party rules on this, although understand why they've been needed (parties within parties and all that).
I get posts on FB for some pro EU labour group. I keep asking if they feel safe promoting a position which goes against party policy and if they fear expulsion?
What’s going on here?
It would appear to be a mistake. These are probably the correct figures:
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-12-march-2023/
A 21% Labour lead, not 2%
The latest Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ poll gives Labour and the Tories exactly the same share of the votes as the Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ poll exactly a month ago:
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-12-february-2023/
So not much movement then.
the one rone showed is 'blue wall' voting intention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_(British_politics)
So Labour have a lead in the 'blue wall'?
I have no idea what the blue wall.
How are things in the orange wall?
How are things in the orange wall?
covfefe!
The “Blue Wall” is where many of the LibDem target seats are (they’ve already grabbed a few since the last general election). LibDem poll share growing there is interesting.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1637740772048125954?t=rVgfr2PVqSjhzKezr7gjew&s=19
Big sigh on all possible outcomes.
Battle of the identical monetarists!
Monetarism shown to be making things worse but it's still the way forward apparently. Although 'don't know' might be waiting for some actual decent direction on the economy by either said political party to make some big useful fiscal choices.
Or a third party. Lol.