Forum menu
People trust the Tories over Labour to run the economy.
We only need to look at the Zahawi/Truss debacle really for a killer example...
And people still vote for them...
Why? I guess these people are totally stupid and suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome, where by they are far too proud to admit they may have been led down the garden path.
That seems to be a thing I encounter a lot, people will never admit they might be wrong, they'd sooner jump off a cliff than admit they need a re-think, its like some sort of modern mental illness.
Just look at those people who had the pub with the golliwogs... all they had to do was stop openly being arseholes, but they chose to die on that hill, lost thier business etc...
There's nothing rational about that...
We only need to look at the Zahawi/Truss debacle really for a killer example…
And people still vote for them…
I thought the Tories got rid of Liz Truss within days of her becoming Prime Minister precisely because they very quickly realised that voters wouldn't vote Tory if she was leader?
Labour almost always take a defensive position or even abandon any attempt to defend themselves – the Tory/LibDem attack on Labour’s hhandling of the global credit crisis (which imo was the single most impressive achievement by New Labour) and the subsequent deficit is a good example of this.
It’s strange beyond the imagination of Hollywood that the narrative that New Labour, & specifically Gordon Brown, caused a global banking crisis (which I’ve seen trotted out many times), and left the country bankrupt, which consequently directly “forced” Conservative & Lib Dem austerity measures. I just don’t understand why Labour have never seemed to defend their fiscal record & place it in contrast to Conservative’s. I just don’t get it; it’s like they also believe the narrative.
As others have mentioned, if Labour came out fighting & pointing up their own achievements people would maybe start to think of them in terms of winning an election & not the Conservatives losing one. It occurs to me that for whatever reason they want to distance themselves from their history. Labour seem to have a burning desire to reinvent themselves after every failure, whereas the Tories double down.
The irony is that if Gordon Brown has any responsibility with regards to the banking crisis it's that he embraced the Tories light touch deregulation mantra.
The Tories's are very good at blaming everything on Labour even when their own failings should be obvious.
People who don't benefit from Tory government vote tory for many reasons;
- Brainwashed over the years and convinced the the Tory party is still best for them
- No ability and/or desire to look into what the parties actually do (see point 1)
- Easily swayed by anti immigration, culture wars etc,. that in reality make no difference to them (see point 1)
Some of my own family vote Tory. They are not very bright or wealthy and when questioned for 30 seconds anything they believe seems to fall apart quickly and when discussing further they would clearly pick a Labour government based on their beliefs and thoughts around society.
So why don't they vote Labour - "You can't trust them and they will give money away". Question it for 30 seconds etc,. etc,.
Other Tories I speak to are wealthly and quite bright - their reasons for voting tory are because they are wealthy as they put the effort in and if everyone was like them it would all be fine. Pointing out the obvious issues with that approach tends to end the conversation.
The irony is that if Gordon Brown has any responsibility with regards to the banking crisis it’s that he embraced the Tories light touch deregulation mantra.
Indeed the tories attacked him for not being light touch enough.
It’s strange beyond the imagination of Hollywood that the narrative that New Labour, & specifically Gordon Brown, caused a global banking crisis (which I’ve seen trotted out many times), and left the country bankrupt, which consequently directly “forced” Conservative & Lib Dem austerity measures. I just don’t understand why Labour have never seemed to defend their fiscal record & place it in contrast to Conservative’s. I just don’t get it; it’s like they also believe the narrative.
Because they're bound by the same narrative of finite public money swilling around.
Labour might be thought of as broadly redistributive but they too believe that the the private sector feeds the public sector.
It's impossible to get anywhere much with this at the back of your policies.
Labour couldn't kick back because of their own framing. And even if you take their false framing as tax needed for services - no one really seems to want to actually tax anyone at the levels needed to make it all work.
Everything is totally back to front. Labour and Tory are committed to Neoliberalism because they can't see another option. Little will ever improve because of this.
This is why Labour have swung right - to fit the current system rather than actually trying to change it to benefit the public purpose.
The LP mission was always to quell industrial action whilst posing as defenders of the underdog. As strikes and class consciousness have increased the LP has moved further to the right to shut this down. Murdoch and co will be happy to give them a go as obsequious Starmer's made it very clear he won't frighten the horses or even boo to a goose.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1655603477496619008?s=20
Polls all over the shop. Bit different than the Omnisis one above.
Bit different than the Omnisis one above.
Which is probably why neither should be taken too seriously. One gives the LibDems 16% the other one gives the LibDems 7%.
The poll of polls shows LibDem support remarkably stable and bumping along at 10-12% for the last 12 months.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
Mullin says Corbyn “and his blinkered supporters” bore much of the blame for Labour’s defeat in the 2019 election. But he goes on: “Jeremy has behaved with dignity throughout, despite the extraordinary quantity of shite that has rained down upon him, much of it from people unworthy to tie his shoelaces.”
Fair comment imo.
Got the cowardice bit correct. Across the board.
So Starmer won't rule out a pact with the Libs.
I hope that will come with some demands from them. A smart move as I could almost be persuaded to tactically vote labour if I know that there is a slight chance he could be reined in.
" Boo boo them nasty libs made me be nice to the EU"
Starmer won't rule in or out anything at all depending on which way the flags are blowing. And then won't stick to it.
PMSL at the Guardian.
When radical is on offer , you do everything in your power to make sure it doesn't happen.
I wonder if people are getting this yet?
So it turns out that people who are found out to be sex-pets are allowed to carry on with their jobs in today's Labour Party:
She then complained about his conduct to the Labour party in early 2020. But after a year passed with no outcome, the party said it had no record of responding to her complaint and asked her to confirm if she wanted to continue with it.
This month, she was told her complaint had been upheld again and that the man, who remains an adviser to a Labour frontbencher, will receive a “final warning”.
So TWO claims of sexual harassment against a young woman upheld and he just gets a final warning. Presumably the warning after the first sexual harassment incident wasn't a "final" warning.
And yet 'liking' a Nicola Sturgeon tweet can have such devastating consequences in Starmer's Labour party:
"The accusations against me include having once ‘liked’ a tweet by Nicola Sturgeon saying she had tested negative for Covid under the heading ‘likes of opposition parties’, and an article I wrote advocating for a Green New Deal, a campaign I've been proud to be a part of.”
Needless to say Lauren Townsend is on the left of the Labour Party and had the backing of trade unions Aslef, CWU, FBU, Unison, Unite and the TSSA.
No doubt the sex-pest "front bench" advisor is no leftie.
SKS was visiting my work today
Im stuck at home due to strikes
anywa
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1657035671540838403
According to Omnisis :
and it’s a CHART-TOPPING 27-point lead for Labour
It certainly is!
Although Techne gives a more modest 17% Labour lead.
https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1656917036163903491
Good to see Reform polling same as Green - what a country
Good to see Reform polling same as Green – what a country
That is a reflection of first-past-the-post rather than level of popular support.
Opinion polls which ask voters how they would vote if there was a general election simply reflects how people would vote in a general election, not which party they most support.
It is clear from last week's local elections that the Green Party is vastly more popular with voters than Reform UK is.
The Green Party won 481 council seats last week, Reform UK won just 6. FPTP does not affect local elections in the same way as it affects parliamentary elections.
The good news is that Reform UK only receives the support of about 5% of the electorate. The bad news is that because of FPTP only 5% of the electorate feels that there is any point in voting Green in a GE.
It is clear from last week’s local elections that the Green Party is vastly more popular with voters than Reform UK is.
Very few voters had a chance to vote for a Reform candidate last week.
[ approx 1/14 of seats had a Reform candidate, where as I suspect it was about 1/2 of seats had a Green candidate ]
And why do you think that is? Because of their extraordinarily low level of support Reform UK "only" stood in about 500 council seats in last week's local elections.
Obviously they will have stood in the seats which they believed they had the best chance of winning. Even the Tories and Labour often don't bother standing candidates where they know they have no hope of winning.
Despite fielding nearly 500 candidates Reform UK won just 6 council seats, such is their lack of electoral appeal.
But big up Reform UK, if it works for your predetermined narrative.
No narrative. Just explaining why levels of support shown are quite different in polling than in votes where Reform was not an option for people to choose in the vast majority of cases. Carry on. Sorry for interrupting.
Just explaining why levels of support shown are quite different in polling than in votes where Reform was not an option for people to choose in the vast majority of cases
No you are not explaining anything, you are deliberately muddying the waters. The reason Reform UK only got 6 seats last week is because of their lack of electoral support, not because people didn't have the option to vote for them.
Reform UK stood in nearly 500 seats where they felt they stood the best chance, they won just six. It is nonsense to claim that they would have won significantly more seats if they had stood where they felt they had no chance at all.
Btw the reason I deleted the reference to your narrative is because I can't quite figure out if you challenged the obvious fact that Reform UK do not enjoy significant support because it runs counter to you narrative, or simply because it is important to you to contradict whatever I say whenever possible. I suspect it is a bit of both.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-stamer-conservative-new-labour-b2337901.html
In a speech on Saturday, the Labour leader will say the Tories “can no longer claim to be conservative”
"And look – if that sounds conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care. Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great and it isn’t going to be the Tories,”
So there you have it, the problem is that the Tories are no longer conservatives.
Make Britain Great Again
Or as Reform put it "Make Britain Great". They missed out the again so the traitors presumably never thought it was great before.
This is a lovely headline:
Labour are the real conservatives, says Keir Starmer as he promises to protect ‘our way of life’
Who ever expected to see a headline like that?
“Why do Labour talk Britain down…?!”
“Why do Labour hate our way of life…?!”
Etc, etc. Starmer’s team seem to have focussed on why people voted against Labour up here, away from the big smoke, with unerring vigour. It’s all superficial nonsense of course, but if it works… and the signs are that it is working… upsetting some of the chattering metropolitan class is a price worth paying.
Vacuous messaging from a content-free leadership. How inspiring.
From the link at the top of the page…
Meanwhile, the LabourList website has published a leaked internal draft of Labour policies that gives the clearest idea yet of what Sir Keir might commit to doing in power.
The early plans, drawn up by party policy chiefs, include existing eye-catching commitments to raising taxes on private schools and taking the railways into public ownership.
Notable plans spelled out in the National Policy Forum documents also include the repeal of some anti-trade union legislation and the abolition of non-dom tax status.
And it also spells out in detail how Labour will decarbonise Britain's economy – with a state investment fund backing new gigafactories and R&D money for green industry.
The party also plans a wave of “in-sourcing” of public services back to the public sector, though there is a lack of detail on how this would be achieved.
It also has plans for an employment rights bill in the first 100 days of entering office.
The party says a Labour government would invest in nuclear power but not issue new licences for the exploration of oil and gas.
And it wants a rolling programme for electrification of the railways and says it will build HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.
kelvin
Full Member
“Why do Labour talk Britain down…?!”
“Why do Labour hate our way of life…?!”
Etc, etc. Starmer’s team seem to have focussed on why people voted against Labour up here
There is a third way between "British people are literally all racist homophobes" and "this is a great country as it is", though.
If our way of life is so great, why change the government?
… upsetting some of the chattering metropolitan class is a price worth paying.
And then the ****wits will whine when people go and vote for the libdems and greens instead of the metropolitian elite cosplaying as salt of the earth types.
Its not superficial nonsense. Its a careful lie spread by the hard right who want to hide their asset stripping behind a pretence of patriotism and an attempt to declare their preferred way of life as what it means to British. Unsurprisingly since most of them spend as little time in the Uk as possible this has little resemblance to reality.
You know I could tolerate a few ounces of posturing and flags if the economics were on point.
I'd be happy then that the culture war was just a bit superficial.
But the economics are utter shite and full of dumb illogical nebulous thinking.
Go slightly right on social stuff (tread lightly, grit teeth) and left economically would be a winner, knowing you could swing back once in power and still deliver.
Starmer has swung full on right everywhere with no get out.
They're not a left wing party.
Etc, etc. Starmer’s team seem to have focussed on why people voted against Labour up here, away from the big smoke, with unerring vigour. It’s all superficial nonsense of course, but if it works… and the signs are that it is working… upsetting some of the chattering metropolitan class is a price worth paying.
He's not done it correctly otherwise he would be speaking in less that stupid terms about the stuff people care about.
How hard is it to articulate this point? Why would it be a vote loser?
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1656789846134759429?t=FJQGrn3TbHt0166AHH7Dtg&s=19
Starmer not half as smart as he has led some people to believe. He's only smart if you think turning Labour towards the right is the definition of successful.
Labour are the real conservatives, says Keir Starmer as he promises to protect ‘our way of life’
Prick.
It's not as if there aren't a million desperate progressive to reasons to argue your corner.
****s sake.
This is what I find particularly galling:
Sir Keir Starmer has said he does not care if people think he is conservative – as he promised the next government will be New Labour “on steroids”.
If he doesn't care why wasn't he open and honest when he stood to be party leader?
Why didn't he tell the party membership that if he was elected the next government would be New Labour on steroids and that he wouldn't care if people thought he was a Conservative?
Instead of deliberately misleading those he asked to vote for him by claiming that "based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand"
I think this is very much a case of "The working-class can kiss my arse, I've got the Labour Leader's job at last". Sung to the tune of The Red Flag of course.
I think this is very much a case of “The working-class can kiss my arse, I’ve got the Labour Leader’s job at last”. Sung to the tune of The Red Flag of course.
Why even be part of the Labour party?
It simply doesn't make any sense. Where did any semblance of moral servitude go?
Did he ever any? Is he just an egotist that wants to be in charge no matter what?
Top job sort of guy.
I absolutely don't think he's motivated by making things better.
Starmer’s team seem to have focussed on why people voted against Labour up here,
They haven't, they have completely ignored the reality that 40 years of neoliberalism serving the few and ignoring the many caused disenfranchisement and created the breeding ground for populism. People voted for a false hope, because the alternative was no hope, Starmer is again creating a vacuum of hope that will inevitably be filled with populist lies.
Starmer is the embodiment of the "chattering metropolitan class" he has had a life gifted with opportunity, but believes he is special and works harder than everyone else, just like the tories he thinks that poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough, that they should just get better jobs. He thinks he has a right to power and his policies are purely about convincing enough people to vote for him, they have nothing to do with any ideological desire to improve the nations lives.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others"
Why even be part of the Labour party?
It simply doesn’t make any sense.
I think joining the Labour Party was a perfectly wise move for Keir Starmer in his quest for personal fulfillment.
I qualified barrister is easily going to progress through a party which still has relatively few public school educated members and a large membership consisting of trade unionists.
I doubt that Starmer's career prospects would have been quite so bright had he plumped for the Tory Party where the competition would have likely been higher.
When Starmer first entered parliament the Tories had almost twice as many MPs from the legal professions as Labour:
"In the Conservative party, 22% of MPs have a legal background, as do 13% of Labour MPs and 16% of Scottish Nationalists."
I think joining the Labour Party was a perfectly wise move for Keir Starmer in his quest for personal fulfillment.
Yeah - shame we have to bear the brunt of him at the helm of a democratic socialist party.
Job description a bit wonky?
I doubt that Starmer’s career prospects would have been quite so bright had he plumped for the Tory Party where the competition would have likely been higher
He'd have been in the right party though.
He’d have been in the right party though.
But luckier to find a winnable seat and rise through the parliamentary party.
Imagine how daunting the selection process must be when your rivals are also barristers but went to the same public schools as members of the selection panel, instead of a private school in Reigate which no one has heard of.
And the compare that with a selection process where your rivals are comprehensive state educated middle-class/working-class punters who swoon at your awesomeness when they realise that you are the former Director of Public Prosecutions.
Which is going to be the easier do you think?
Besides, he is in the right party - he can adjust his moral principles to suit. It's just that when he is desperate to become Labour Party leader he is a firebrand socialist who is a 'friend' of Jeremy Corbyn and makes the moral case for socialism.
And when he is desperate to become prime minister he is Tony Blair on steroids and claims to be a better Conservative than the Tories.
So he is in the right party - today's Labour Party is the ideal vehicle for self-serving fraudsters and charlatans. There is no place for anyone who is motivated by selfless conviction. Except possibly in Wales.
“The working-class can kiss my arse, I’ve got the Labour Leader’s job at last”.
I think Starmer has realised that the body politic has changed and the traditional alliance between the working class and Labour no longer exists (that and the realisation that the further left Labour moved, the worse they did in elections).
That Labour have got back some of the red wall voters does not mean they're back for good. Red Wall traditional Labour voters rejected the Tories at the local elections due to incompetence, not ideology. They've voted Tory once, they could do so again and Starmer recognises this.
If Starmer's ideological credentials don't match your own then vote for someone else. Maybe Starmer thinks there's more votes to be gained by appealing to the red wall working class voters than more idealogically leaning voters like yourselves.
In addition, the Conservatives are no longer conservative, they are Nationalist and have left a vacuum for moderate conservatives, particularly in the South. It would be remiss of Labour to ignore these potential voters, they are the kind of voters that helped bring Blair into office.
It’s not so hard to become a Tory MP… we have hundreds of examples of this in parliament right now. Hopefully they’ll be far fewer of them come the election. If that happens, it’s obvious that those that have done nothing by moan for three ****ing years on this thread about Starmer won’t credit him for that success at all. Because getting Labour into office is so damn easy… isn’t it…
In addition, the Conservatives are no longer conservative, they are Nationalist and have left a vacuum for moderate conservatives, particularly in the South.
Nicely summed up - Starmer's project is to turn the Labour Party into a conservative party that is true to the founding principles of the Tory Party.
Of course if he believes that is the correct and logical way forward for Labour he should have made that very clear when he stood in the leadership contest, instead of making "the moral case for socialism".
He has no mandate. Which is obviously why he is overseeing full-scale purging from the party of anyone who might oppose the 'New Labour on steroids' strategy.
There is no evidence that 'red wall voters' are instinctively attracted to a conservative party, which is of course precisely why they are referred to living in a 'red wall'.
But I can see why affluent middle-class voters with right-wing tendencies would be attracted to New Labour on steroids - it gives them the opportunity to vote for Conservative policies without the stigma of voting Tory, they can pretend to have a social conscience.
IMO conservative policies are always wrong, it's not an issue of which party propagates or applies them.
It’s not so hard to become a Tory MP… we have hundreds of examples of this in parliament right now. Hopefully they’ll be far fewer of them come the election. If that happens, it’s obvious that those that have done nothing by moan for three **** years on this thread about Starmer won’t credit him for that success at all. Because getting Labour into office is so damn easy… isn’t it…
Fewer Tory MPs but many more right-wing MPs.
Seriously what's the point at all?
Seems to me people are so so desperate for the Tories to go they're failing to analyse the direction of travel for the country in terms of not fixing problems that a Starmer government will offer.
It's not good enough.
Fewer Tory MPs but many more right-wing MPs.
Ok hun. Whatever.
And just to add to this comment:
the Conservatives are no longer conservative, they are Nationalist
Apparently Sir Keir Starmer believes that the Tories aren't just not good conservatives but also not very good nationalists. Presumably unlike him - he is now both a conservative and proper nationalist.
According to the i link above:
Sir Keir will offer a personal view of his own patriotism, based on understanding the “true worth of service, respect and stability” and criticise those who harbour “patronising contempt for those who fly our flag”.
Gawd bless him and his love of the flag - hopefully we will see him publicly hugging the flag Trump-style.
Make Britain Great Again!
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1657362009761935362?t=5QbIRe4xK1AaUgz-vr0clA&s=19
A dalek makes more sense.
It’s not so hard to become a Tory MP
Actually it is. That you use "hundreds" contradicts your claim. Thats a pretty narrow job market.
You are confusing the final stage of the process which is often outside of the candidates control, especially when first trying to get elected, with the hard part of the process namely getting given a seat where a donkey with a red/blue/yellow ribbon, okay maybe not the latter, will get elected.
It is worth reading "why we get the wrong politicians". Whilst I am not convinced by all the arguments it is pretty good at explaining the process.
Apparently Sir Keir Starmer believes that the Tories aren’t just not good conservatives but also not very good nationalists.
To be fair he has a point there. Its just the answer isnt to turn Labour into the new tories but join the tories and fix them instead (if you are that way inclined that is, I am not but I do believe in having a good party which represents the tory side of things).
” he has had a life gifted with opportunity...he thinks that poor people are poor because they don’t work hard enough
I find Starmer's "make GB great again" routine fairly dispiriting. But you're portraying him as some kind of personal privilege-encrusted elitest, and that's just not true.
He could just be doing a Cameron "hug a hoody/husky" type thing to get votes & will come back to centre left as soon as he gets into power.
He's going so far to the right I'm struggling to believe it.
He could just be doing a Cameron “hug a hoody/husky” type thing to get votes & will come back to centre left as soon as he gets into power.
Even if that was true (as you say it is becoming increasingly hard to believe) its still something I couldnt support.
Lie to get power is something which should be opposed even if I agree with the end results. It undermines trust in politicians and just makes it a guesswork as to what you will get.
Agreed
But I can see why affluent middle-class voters with right-wing tendencies would be attracted to New Labour on steroids
I probably qualify Ernie but he leaves me cold. He's offering nothing for those that protest voted in 2016 due to being left behind. An opportunity spurned and wasted by the 'Labour' leader.
Well if Starmer leaves you cold for offering nothing to those left behind then it doesn't really suggest right-wing tendencies Sandwich.
But you’re portraying him as some kind of personal privilege-encrusted elitest, and that’s just not true.
No I am not, I am portraying him as someone who's life has just always worked out for him, someone who thinks his luck is down to his hard work and intelligence, someone who doesn't understand that most people don't get the breaks he has. Like baby boomers riding a wave of asset inflation, telling the following generations to work harder.
He is not alone in that disconnect from "normal life" in the political classes, but it is disappointing to see it so clearly in the labour party, and even being worn as a badge of honour by the labour leader.
If Trump said something this rambling, the liberal press would whinge about it for days, but it’s someone they like so it’s very clever & meaningful!
I have only just watched that video clip, Starmer really is shameless.
It is obvious designed to commit to nothing whilst nevertheless giving an impression of a deep commitment.
But how he can stand there before an audience and talk about "my values and my political core" when no one, including apparently himself, has any idea what they are, beggars belief.
He certainly has a trump-like lack of self awareness.
I know that some Labour party members feel betrayed by Starmer, feeling that he should have been more honest with his leadership bid and as a consequence has no mandate but here's the thing...
Nobody else gives a s***. In fact, the majority of the public is sick to the back teeth with the membership of both major parties, (having delivered us both Corbyn and Truss). As far as most of us are concerned party members can take their 'special' vote and stick it where the sun don't shine.
And I really don't give two hoots about 'principles' either. Getting it right is more important than being right. The moral high ground is so much easier to occupy than Downing Street.
Nobody else gives a s***.
I think quite a few people do, which is precisely why the Tories will exploit to the maximum the fact that Starmer has and is constantly contradicting himself.
You might personally not give a shit whether or not Starmer can be trusted, but many voters do
Nobody else gives a s***. In fact, the majority of the public is sick to the back teeth with the membership of both major parties, (having delivered us both Corbyn and Truss). As far as most of us are concerned party members can take their ‘special’ vote and stick it where the sun don’t shine
Of course people give a shit. Or they will as the squeeze continues.
And using examples of Truss and particularly Corbyn means to me you're simply ignoring the bigger problem of generally rubbish politics passing for the status-quo.
Corbyn offered the change that we need - instead we have all of this. Excellent.
It's not the membership that's the problem it's the nutters driving neoliberalism down your throat as the correct and only way to run a country.
Deeper damage has been done by successive Tory leaders than Truss ever did. All Truss did is reveal the flimsy parameters of over-leveraged financial assets and a deeply speculative currency system - and the bonkers way we generate pension profits. All unnecessary - and raises questions of the markets control over what is good for all of us (even if we hate crazy Tax cuts.)
I'm far from defending her but you can't hold Truss and Corbyn up as political ogres when the rest of the political establishment have pursued devastating policies for years that have enecated real damaged.
And I really don’t give two hoots about ‘principles’ either. Getting it right is more important than being right. The moral high ground is so much easier to occupy than Downing Street
There are no examples of him getting anything right other than moving to the right.
That's not a good thing.
It's so much easier being a right wing loon - they don't have to fix things and set out progressive agendas or be bothered by that guff.
Just keep the country steeped in private debt and low wages, drive inequality and applaud home ownership - whilst at the same time watching your economy contract, state stripped and services ruined.
Well done with being right.
It's called giving in - just to be in power. It's not healthy or going to solve any of our actual immediate problems.
To much is being built around personality politics rather than good ideas.
rone,
I said people don't give a s*** about what party memberships (of both parties) think, I was quite specific.
"To much is being built around personality politics rather than good ideas."
I thought we'd established that Starmer doesn't have a personality?
Has Starmer moved to the right? Yes... This might be because he looked at the numbers and realised that Labour was haemorraging votes to the Conservatives. Either that or he's realised that over the last three election cycles, the further Labour moved left, the lower the number of seats were won.
EDIT:
I think you're a bit confused about the being right and getting it right thing...
Getting it right - increasing your vote share.
Being right - appeasing the membership.
I'm very much on the pragmatic, win power to change lives wing of the Labour Party. But I don't think you win power in this country at this point in time by promising you won't change much and appealing to conservatism. I think that was why the Scottish independence referendum failed.
To much is being built around personality politics rather than good ideas.
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn,
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn...
"You might personally not give a shit whether or not Starmer can be trusted, but many voters do"
That might be the case but on the flip side, I'm sure many voters see Starmer as someone who has regained control of his party and is quite ruthless.
I fully accept that that infuriates many Labour supporters, to them it must seem that as soon as anyone steps out of line they're for the chop. For the electorate as a whole however, that might not be such a bad thing. He may have a charisma deficit and no clearly defined vision but at least he's got his own party in line, something the Tories haven't had for years.
So do the public trust him to stick to his manifesto pledges? Probably not. Would they trust him to assemble a cabinet that didn't have to be reshuffled on a weekly basis in order to appease whatever faction within his own party? Probably yes.
It's horrible I know but every time Starmer purges someone from the party or is attacked by the left it makes him look a little bit stronger. It might not be reflected in his popularity rating but if you were to ask the public who is more likely to assemble a stable and competent cabinet? (rather than one of curiosities) then I reckon Starmer would get the nod.
doesn’t really suggest right-wing tendencies Sandwich.
I'm that rare beast an older chap who has become progressively more Socialist as I've aged. I subscribe to bit of Marx like;
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
and also the Star Trek;
"the needs of the many, outweigh those of the few."
It’s horrible I know but every time Starmer purges someone from the party or is attacked by the left it makes him look a little bit stronger. It might not be reflected in his popularity rating...
Yeah there is no evidence of that, as you actually point out yourself. You seem to be basing your conclusions on hope and faith.
The Welsh Labour Party leader doesn't appear to have been disadvantaged by being honest about his socialist convictions:
"The frontrunner to become the next Welsh first minister is describing himself as a “21st-century socialist” and making clear his solidarity with the UK Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn."
And the latest polls suggest that he still remains more popular than the Starmer does in Wales:
Labour leader Keir Starmer’s net approval rating in Wales stands at -7%.
First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford receives a net approval rating of +2%.
Starmer the conservative doesn't appear to be hugely more popular than a self-confessed socialist. Obviously there is the possibility that Welsh voters are massively different than voters in the rest of Britain, but I doubt that they are.
Not for me, it's simply the concept that Starmer is somehow correct in his approach when it's a continuation of the politics that led us here.
Why is that right? Or proper or good for the country?
And yes I deliberately conflated right with right.
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn,
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn…
Not really relevant.
Liked the policies.
I’m very much on the pragmatic, win power to change lives wing of the Labour Party
How's that gone down?
Started with Centrist sing-song of pragmatism - ended up ideologically rightwards.
Pragmatism is code for continuation of shit politics when you don't have the balls to come up with something - and my god are there plenty of open goals.
Actually the writing was on the wall when Starmeroid kept giving the Tories his support to make a mess of Covid.
I do wonder when Starmer supporters get off and say I've had enough of this junk?
Well that's Scottish Labour gubbed for another election cycle. Say what you like about the SNP, if they come out with "vote Labour get Tory" they won't be far wrong.
Catering to English votes is all well and good until you realise that it only strengthens the case of the nationalists.
Wales is a devolved country isn't it? So it's hardly surprising that Welsh voters have a different take on things than English voters, otherwise there would have been no need for devolution in the first place?
If a Corbynist agenda gets Labour elected in Wales then great but that's not going to work in England.
With the SNP in disarray, Starmer could go a bit more Corbyn and perhaps pick up a few more seats there but I'm guessing he's worked out that it would be at the expense of seats in England.
I'm not a Starmer supporter btw, I'm just an 'anyone but the Tories' and a 'by any means neccessary'.
"You seem to be basing your conclusions on hope and faith."
Not hope or faith, just a gut feeling.
So it’s hardly surprising that Welsh voters have a different take on things than English voters, otherwise there would have been no need for devolution in the first place?
That's a strange logic. Devolved power wasn't introduced to allow a "different take on things". It was to increase democracy and allow people to have more control over things which directly affect them.
You could have the Labour Party in government in London, Scotland, and Wales, and it wouldn't undermine the need or importance of devolution one iota.
I don't believe that Welsh voters are vastly different to voters in the rest of Britain, although they are very likely to understand the issues which directly affect them better than voters in the rest of Britain.
There is no evidence that English voters are gagging for a Labour leader who claims to be a better Conservative than the Tories. There is however considerable evidence that voters throughout the UK want an end to Conservative policies.
It feels like panic stations, they've realised that they could stick a face on a wheeliebin and win the next election, so now Starmer's frantically redecorating and making himself into Tony Blair Max, ie, David Cameron so that once he wins they can go back to saying "Only new labour can win elections" With an open goal on their hands now it's all about deciding exactly what that goal looks like, for the next 20 years. The most important thing is to defeat their own party.
****s. Once again needs Undead John Smith to come back and pull some limbs off.
With an open goal on their hands now it’s all about deciding exactly what that goal looks like, for the next 20 years. The most important thing is to defeat their own party.
That is a very plausible argument and one that I hadn't thought of.
I do see the hand of Peter Mandelson behind some of the stuff that has been coming out of Starmer recently.
Last week Starmer, obviously deliberately, echoed Peter Mandelson when he said that he was relaxed about people being rich:
Then yesterday he said that the Tories were no longer conservative and suggested that he held conservative values.
My first reaction was "well saying that is going to piss off a lot of Labour voters". But then I remembered that Peter Mandelson famously told Peter Hain early in the first Blair government that working-class people “had nowhere else to go”.
Starmer clearly shares that Mandelson attitude that faithful Labour voters have nowhere else to go, well not in England anyway.
It not only gains Tory votes but helps to permanently defeat the left within the Labour Party I see the appeal of that to both Starmer and Mandelson.
Mandelson despises the left far more than he does the Tories, whom he probably quite likes - he has certainly tried to help them win elections.
Starmer clearly shares that Mandelson attitude that faithful Labour voters have nowhere else to go, well not in England anyway.
Nor in Scotland, basically if you vote Labour it's unlikely you're going to switch to SNP unless you can get over the nationalism question, you're definitely not going to vote Tory and everyone else is either absent (Libs), variations on a theme, hopeless or a combination thereof.
So what you end up with is disenfranchisement, resentment and ultimately full on rejection.
Then yesterday he said that the Tories were no longer conservative and suggested that he held conservative values.
I'm probably making stuff up in my head but I hope eventually - what with things getting financially worse on a personal level (latest rate rises yet to kick in) - this could all back fire for both major parties.
I've no idea what shap or form that would come in (hung Parliament, split votes, difficult questions) - but somewhere along the way no solutions will not be appealing.
What does the political landscape look like if neither party offers solutions?
If a Corbynist agenda gets Labour elected in Wales then great but that’s not going to work in England
It's not a Corbynist agenda - it's a progressive agenda to push back against right-wing ideals.
That's good for most of us.
Otherwise what the hell are we doing?
I’m not a Starmer supporter btw, I’m just an ‘anyone but the Tories’ and a ‘by any means neccessary
We're all desperate but that logic could include poor outcomes. We need better than the Tories and better than the actual agenda that this form Capitalism has delivered.
That means having solutions or you will just get taken for ride when the new party takes hold.
You've had years of an idealism that has failed unless you're pretty asset rich - why on earth would you not want something better?
I can't get my head around 'pragmatism' that fails to acknowledge reversing the damage of the right.
There's no point getting annoyed at the Tories if your solution is - the status quo just needs doing better. The policies are the problem.